2006

Resource
Centre
European Institute of
Public Administration
The Common Assessment Framework (CAF)
Improving an organisation through self-assessment

CAF 2006

Index
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2

Enablers Criteria ........................................................................................................... 7

Criterion 1: Leadership .................................................................................................. 8
Criterion 2: Strategy and planning .............................................................................. 10
Criterion 3: People ...................................................................................................... 12
Criterion 4: Partnerships and resources ....................................................................... 14
Criterion 5: Processes .................................................................................................. 16

Results Criteria ........................................................................................................... 19

Criterion 6: Citizen/customer-oriented results ............................................................. 20
Criterion 7: People results ........................................................................................... 21
Criterion 8: Society results ........................................................................................... 22
Criterion 9: Key performance results ........................................................................... 23

CAF Scoring and assessment panels ........................................................................... 24

Guidelines for improving organisations using CAF ..................................................... 30

Bench learning ........................................................................................................... 40

Glossary ................................................................................................................... 43
Introduction
Definition
The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) is a To-
tal Quality Management (TQM) tool inspired by the
Excellence Model of the European Foundation for
Quality Management (EFQM) and the model of the
German University of Administrative Sciences in
Speyer. It is based on the premise that excellent results
in organisational performance, citizens/customers,
people and society are achieved through leadership
driving strategy and planning, people, partnerships
and resources and processes. It looks at the organisa-
tion from different angles at the same time, the holistic
approach of organisation performance analysis.
Origin and growth
The CAF is a result of co-operation among the EU
Ministers responsible for Public Administration.
It is jointly developed under the aegis of the
Innovative Public Services Group (IPSG), a working
group of national experts set up by the Directors-
General (DG) in order to promote exchanges and
cooperation where it concerned innovative ways of
modernising government and public service
delivery in EU Member States.
A pilot version was presented in May 2000 and
a first revised version was launched in 2002.
A CAF Resource Centre CAF (RC) was created at the
European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA)
in Maastricht following the decision of DGs in
charge of public service. In a strategic state-
ment, EIPA pointed out how it wants to play its role
as a European CAF Resource Centre and what its
objectives are in this respect.
Together with the network of national CAF correspond-
ents, assisted by the European Foundation for Quality
Management (EFQM) and the University of Speyer, the
CAF RC coached the implementation of the model in
many ways and evaluated its use. Between 2000 and
2005 ca. 900 European public administrations used the
CAF to improve their organisations. Also from outside
Europe there is a lot of interest in using the tool e.g. from
China, Middle East, Dominican Republic and Brazil.
More than 300 CAF users met at the 1st and 2nd
European CAF Users Events in Rome in 2003
and in Luxembourg in 2005. Two studies by EIPA,
established in the context of these events, give detailed
information on the use of CAF in Europe and they in-
spired the CAF 2006 revision. A database on CAF ap-
plications is being further developed at EIPA, allowing
integrating good practices in public administrations
from all over Europe and maybe wider. A CAF e-tool
will be soon fully available for the CAF community. The
CAF website gives all the available information on the
European level. The model is now translated in 19 lan-
guages. But also on the national level, many countries
developed CAF support structures including training,
2
e-tools, brochures, CAF users’ events and CAF data
bases. All these activities assure all the CAF actors in-
volved that the target of 2000 registered CAF users in
2010 – set by the United Kingdom presidency – will
be met.
The Ministers responsible for Public Administration in
the European Union expressed at the end of the Lux-
embourg presidency on 8 June 2005 their apprecia-
tion for the fruitful exchange of ideas, experiences and
good/best practices between the Public Administrations
of the EU Member states within the European Public
Administration Network (EPAN) and for the develop-
ment and use of tools such as the Common Assess-
ment Framework. They asked to integrate even more
the quality approach with the Lisbon agenda. The CAF
2006 revision has taken this demand into account.
Main purpose and support
The CAF is offered as an easy to use tool to
assist public sector organisations across Europe
to use quality management techniques to improve
performance. The CAF provides a self-assess-
ment framework that is conceptually similar to the
major TQM models, EFQM in particular, but is
specially conceived for the public sector organisations,
taking into account their differences.
The CAF has four main purposes:
1. To introduce public administration to the principles
of TQM and progressively guide them, through the
use and understanding of self-assessment, from
the current “Plan-Do” sequence of activities to a
full fledged “Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA)” cycle;
2. To facilitate the self-assessment of a public organi-
sation in order to obtain a diagnosis and improve-
ment actions;
3. To act as a bridge across the various models used
in quality management;
4. To facilitate bench learning between public sector
organisations.
A number of components have been worked out in
support of these purposes and are explained in this
brochure: the structure with 9 criteria, 28 sub crite-
ria with examples; assessment panels for the enablers
and the results, guidelines for self-assessment, im-
provement actions and bench learning projects and
a glossary.
Target organisations
The CAF has been designed for use in all parts of the
public sector, applicable to public organisations at the
national/federal, regional and local level. It may also
be used under a wide variety of circumstances e.g. as
part of a systematic programme of reform or as a ba-
sis for targeting improvement efforts in specific public
service organisations. In some cases, and especially in
very large organisations, a self-assessment may also
be undertaken in part of an organisation e.g. in a se-
lected section or department.
Customisation of the tool
As CAF is a generic tool, the customisation of its
use can be recommended but respecting its ba-
sic elements is compulsory: the 9 criteria, 28 sub
criteria and the scoring system. Examples and the
process of self-assessment as described in the guide-
lines are free/flexible but it is recommended to take
into account the key elements of the guidelines.
Structure
The structure of the CAF is illustrated below:
4HE#!&-ODEL
%.!",%23
0EOPLE
,EADERSHIP 3TRATEGY 0ROCESSES
0LANNING
0ARTNERSHIP
2ESOURCES
)../6!4)/.!.$,%!2.).'
Based on the EFQM-Model
The nine-box structure identifies the main aspects re-
quiring consideration in any organisational analysis.
Criteria 1-5 deal with the Enabler features of an or-
ganisation. These determine what the organisation
does and how it approaches its tasks to achieve the
desired results. In the criteria 6-9, results achieved in
the fields of citizens/customers, people, society and
key performance are measured by perception meas-
urements and internal indicators are evaluated. Each
criterion is further broken down into a list of sub cri-
teria. The 28 sub criteria identify the main issues that
need to be considered when assessing an organisa-
tion. They are illustrated by examples that explain the
content of the sub criteria in more detail and suggest
possible areas to address, in order to explore how the
administration answers the requirements expressed in
the sub criterion.
Main characteristics
Using the CAF provides an organisation with a power-
ful framework to initiate a process of continuous im-
provement.
The CAF provides:
– an assessment based on evidence, against a set of
criteria which has become widely accepted across
the public sector in Europe;
– opportunities to identify progress and outstanding
levels of achievement;
– a means to achieve consistency of direction
and consensus on what needs to be done to
improve an organisation;
– a link between the different results to be achieved
and supportive practices or enablers;
2%35,43
0EOPLE2ESULTS
#ITIZEN#USTOMER +EY
0ERFORMANCE
/RIENTED
2ESULTS
2ESULTS
3OCIETY
2ESULTS
– a means to create enthusiasm among employees
by involving them in the improvement process;
– opportunities to promote and share good practice
within different areas of an organisation and with
other organisations;
– a means to integrate various quality initiatives into
normal business operations;
– a means of measuring progress over time through
periodic self-assessment.
Concepts and Values of CAF
As a tool of Total Quality Management, CAF sub-
scribes to the fundamental concepts of excellence as
defined by EFQM: results orientation, customer focus,
leadership and constancy of purpose, management by
processes and facts, involvement of people, continu-
ous improvement and innovation, mutually beneficial
partnerships and corporate social responsibility. It aims
to improve the performance of public organisations on
the basis of these concepts.
Public management and quality in the public sector
have a number of special unique conditions in com-
parison with the private sector. They presume basic
preconditions, common to our European socio-politi-
3
cal and administrative culture: legitimacy (democratic,
parliamentary), the rule of law and ethical behaviour
based on common values and principles such as open-
ness, accountability, participation, diversity, equity, so-
cial justice, solidarity, collaboration and partnerships.
Although CAF primarily focuses on the evaluation of
performance management and the identification of its
organisational causes to make improvement possible,
contributing to good governance is the ultimate goal.
So the assessment of performance addresses the fol-
lowing main features of a public sector organisation:
– democratic responsiveness/accountability;
– operating within the legislative, legal and regula-
tory framework;
– communicating with the political level;
– involvement of stakeholders and balancing of
stakeholder needs;
– excellence in service delivery;
– value for money;
– achievement of objectives;
– management of modernisation, innovation and
change.
Cross functions inside the model
The holistic approach of TQM and CAF does not sim-
ply mean that all aspects of the functioning of an or-
ganisation are carefully assessed but also that all the
composing elements have a reciprocal impact on each
other. A distinction should be made between
– cause-effect relationship between the left part of
the model (the enablers-causes) and the right part
(the results-effects), and
– the holistic relationship between the causes (ena-
blers).
Only to the latter can the holistic character be
applied.
Cross connection between the left and right parts of the
model: consists in the cause-effect relation between the
enablers (causes) and the results (effects), as well as
in the feedback from the latter to the former. Verifica-
tion of cause-effect links is of fundamental importance
in self-assessment, where the assessor should always
check for consistency between a given result (or set of
homogeneous results) and the “evidence” collected on
the relevant criteria and sub criteria on the enabler
side. Such consistency is sometimes difficult to verify,
since due to the holistic character of the organisation,
the different causes (enablers) interact with each other
when producing results. In any case, the existence of
appropriate feedback, from results appearing on the
right side to the appropriate criteria on the left side,
should be checked in the assessment.
4
Cross connection between criteria and sub criteria on the
enabler side: since quality of results is to a large extent
determined by the type and intensity of relationships
between enablers, this type of relationship must be ex-
plored in self-assessment. In fact their intensity is very dif-
ferent between different organisations and their nature
determines to a large extent the quality of the organisa-
tion. Excellent organisations are, for example, charac-
terised by strong interactions between criterion 1 and
criteria 2/3/4, and between 3 and 4/5. Relationships
are obviously not limited to the criteria level. Quite of-
ten substantial interaction/relationships materialise at
sub criterion level.
Importance of evidence and measurements
Self-assessment and improvement of public organi-
sations is very difficult without reliable information
across the different functions of the organisation. CAF
stimulates public sector organisations to gather and
use information but very often this information is not
available at a first self-assessment. This is why CAF
often is considered to be a zero base measurement. It
indicates the areas in which it is essential to start meas-
uring. The more an administration progresses towards
continuous improvement the more it will systematically
and progressively collect and manage information, in-
ternally and externally.
Role of the scoring system
One of the compulsory elements of the CAF is the scor-
ing system. Although the discovery of strengths and
areas for improvement and the linked improvement
actions are the most important outputs of the self-as-
sessment, organisations sometimes focus too much
on scores. The scoring system has been retained and
elaborated in the new CAF version.
Allocating a score to each sub criterion and criterion of
the CAF model has 4 main aims:
1. to give an indication on the direction to follow for
improvement activities;
2. to measure your own progress;
3. to identify good practices as indicated by high
scoring for Enablers and Results;
4. to help to find valid partners to learn from.
New in the CAF 2006 is the provision for two ways
of scoring. The “classical CAF scoring” and the “fine-
tuned CAF scoring”. More information is given in the
chapter on scoring.
Managerial language and the glossary
Many public sector organisations, that use CAF
for the first time, are confronted with a terminol-
ogy that is difficult to access. A background in pub-
lic management helps of course to overcome this
but some people participating at a CAF self-assess-
ment may not have this background. The glossary
at the end of this brochure is there to assist them by
providing a more precise definition for the main words
and concepts.
Given the nature of “clients” in the public sector howev-
er, we wish to define from the start what we understand
by citizen/customer. This term is used to emphasise the
dual relationship between public administration and
– the users of public services, and
– all the members of the public, who as citizens and
taxpayers have a stake in the services provided
and their outputs.
Major differences between CAF 2002 and
2006
Users of previous CAF versions will not find it too dif-
ficult to find their way in the new version.
In the context of the Lisbon strategy more emphasis is
placed on modernisation and innovation. This concern
is therefore more explicitly present in the criteria on
leadership and strategy whilst the need for permanent
innovation of the processes is presented in criterion 5.
The introduction and many new formulated examples
better illustrate the contribution of quality manage-
ment in the public sector towards good governance.
The scoring system allows organisations to deepen
their assessment knowledge and focus more closely
on their improvement actions.
The guidelines on self-assessment and improvement
action plans give additional advice.
The recent success of bench learning with CAF has in-
spired new guidelines in this field.
To summarise, self-assessment against the CAF model
offers the organisation an opportunity to learn more
about itself. Compared to a fully developed Total Qual-
ity Management model, the CAF is designed to be a
user-friendly introductory model. It is assumed that any
organisation that intends to go further will select one
of the more detailed models. The CAF has the advan-
tage of being compatible with these models and may
therefore be a first step for an organisation wishing to
go further with quality management.
We know that “CAF Works”!
The CAF is in public domain and free of charge. Or-
ganisations are free to use the model as they wish.
5
Enablers

Criteria 1-5 deal with the Enabler features of an organisation. These determine what the organisation does and
how it approaches its tasks to achieve the desired results. The assessment of actions relating to the Enablers
should be based on the Enablers Panel (see CAF scoring and Assessment panels).

7
Criterion 1: Leadership
Definition
The behaviour of an organisation’s Leaders can
help to create clarity and unity of purpose and
an environment in which the organisation and its
people excel.
Leaders provide direction for the organisa-
tion. Leaders develop the mission, vision and the
values required for the organisation’s long-term suc-
cess. They motivate and support people in the or-
ganisation by acting as role models and through
appropriate behaviours which are consistent with the
expressed and implied values.
Leaders develop, implement, and monitor the
organisation’s management system and review per-
formance and results. They are responsible for im-
proving performance and prepare for the future by or-
ganising the changes necessary to deliver its mission.
In the public sector, leaders are the main interface be-
tween the organisation and politicians and manage
their shared responsibilities and are also responsible
for managing relationships with other stakeholders
and ensuring that their needs are met.
Key implications
In a representative democratic system, elected politi-
cians make the strategic choices and define the goals
they want to achieve in the different policy areas. The
leadership of public sector organisations assists politi-
cians in formulating policy by giving advice in terms of
analysis, horizon-scanning, or visioning, and is also
responsible for policy implementation and realisation.
Therefore a distinction needs to be drawn within the
public sector between the role of the political leader-
ship and that of the leaders/managers of organisa-
tions. The CAF focuses on the management of public
organisations rather than on the “quality“ of public
policies which is a political responsibility.
Beside their proper values, European public sector or-
ganisations share a number of common values such
as the legality, transparency, equity, diversity and the
refusal of conflicts of interest. Leaders communicate
these values throughout the organisation and may
translate them, for example, into codes of conduct that
guide people’s professional behaviour.
Leaders create the optimal conditions for their organi-
sation to adapt itself to the continuously changing so-
ciety they serve. They are themselves looking for op-
portunities to innovate and modernise. They actively
integrate e-government approaches.
Leaders in public service organisations typically are re-
quired to work within allocated resources to achieve
goals and targets. This sometimes necessitates bal-
ancing the needs of citizens, politicians and other
stakeholders. Therefore leaders need to show a clear
8
understanding of who their customers are, their re-
quirements, and how these can be balanced with po-
litical imperatives, demonstrating clear commitment to
citizens/customers, as well as to other stakeholders.
Assessment: Consider the evidence of what the
organisation’s leadership is doing to:
1.1. Provide direction for the organisation by
developing its mission, vision and val-
ues.
Examples:
a. Formulating and developing the mission (what our
goals are) and the vision (where we want to go)
of the organisation involving relevant stakeholders
and employees.
b. Translating the mission and vision into strategic
(long-term and medium-term) and operational
(concrete and short-term) objectives and actions.
c. Establishing a value framework, including in it
transparency, ethics and citizen service, and a
code of conduct involving stakeholders.
d. Strengthening of mutual trust and respect between
leaders/managers/employees (e.g. defining
norms of good leadership).
e. Creating conditions for effective communication.
Ensuring the wider communication of the mission,
vision, values, strategic and operational objectives
to all employees in the organisation and to other
stakeholders.
f. Reviewing periodically the mission, vision and values
reflecting changes in the external environment.
g. Managing “conflicts of interest” by identifying po-
tential areas of conflicts of interest and providing
guidelines for employees.
Award a score using the Enablers Panel
1.2. Develop and implement a system for the
management of organisation, perform-
ance and change
Examples:
a. Developing processes and organisational struc-
tures in accordance with strategy, planning and
needs and expectations of stakeholders using
available technologies.
b. Defining appropriate management forms (levels,
functions, responsibilities and competencies) and
ensuring a system for managing processes.
c. Developing and agreeing on measurable objec-
tives and goals for all levels of the organisation.
d. Giving direction on output and outcome targets
balancing the needs and expectations of different
stakeholders.
e. Formulating and aligning the net/e-gov strategy
with the strategic and operational objectives of the
organisation.
f. Establishing a management information system
 including internal audits. 1.4. Manage the relations with politicians
g. Establishing appropriate enablers/assumptions and other stakeholders in order to en-
(frameworks) for project management and team- sure shared responsibility
work.
h. Permanent application of TQM-system principles such Examples:
as the CAF Model or the EFQM Excellence Model. a. Identifying the public policies affecting the
i. Developing a system of measurable strategic and organisation.
operational goals/performance measuring in the b. Maintaining proactive and regular relations with
organisation (e.g. Balanced Scorecard). the political authorities of the appropriate execu-
j. Developing systems of quality management such tive and legislative areas.
as ISO 9001-2000, Service Level Agreements c. Ensuring that objectives and goals of the organi-
(SLAs) and different kinds of certification. sation are aligned with public policies.
k. Identifying and setting priorities for necessary d. Developing and maintaining partnerships and
changes regarding the organisational design and networks with important stakeholders (citizens,
business model. Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), interest
l. Communicating change initiatives and the reasons groups, industry and other public authorities).
for change to employees and relevant stakehold- e. Involving political and other stakeholders in the set-
ers. ting of output and outcome targets and the develop-
ment of the organisation’s management system.
Award a score using the Enablers Panel f. Seeking public awareness, reputation and recog-
nition of the organisation and its services.
g. Developing a concept of marketing (product and
1.3. Motivate and support people in the or- service targeted) and its communication in rela-
ganisation and act as a role model tion to stakeholders.
h. Taking part in the activities of professional asso-
Examples: ciations, representative organisations and interest
a. Leading by example thus acting in accordance groups.
with established objectives and values.
b. Demonstrating personal willingness of leaders/ Award a score using the Enablers Panel
managers to accept change by acting on construc-
tive feedback.
c. Keeping employees regularly informed about key
issues related to the organisation.
d. Supporting employees by helping them to car-
ry out their duties, plans and objectives in sup-
port of the achievement of overall organisational
objectives.
e. Stimulating, encouraging and creating conditions
for the delegation of authority, responsibilities and
competencies including accountability (empower-
ment).
f. Promoting a culture of innovation and improve-
ment by encouraging and supporting employees
to make suggestions for innovation and improve-
ment and to be proactive in their daily work.
g. Recognising and rewarding the efforts of teams
and individuals.
h. Respecting and addressing individual needs and
personal circumstances of employees.

Award a score using the Enablers Panel

9
Criterion 2: Strategy and planning
Definition
The way an organisation effectively combines its inter-
related activities determines its overall performance.
The organisation implements its mission and vision
via a clear stakeholder-focused strategy aligning pub-
lic policies/goals and other stakeholders needs, sup-
ported by a continuously improving management of
resources and processes. The strategy is translated
into plans, objectives and measurable targets. Plan-
ning and strategy reflects the organisation’s approach
to implementing modernisation and innovation.
Key implications
Strategy and planning is part of the PDCA (Plan Do
Check Act) cycle, starting by gathering information
on the present and future needs of stakeholders and
also from outcomes and results in order to inform the
planning process. This includes the use of reliable in-
formation, including perceptions from all stakeholders
to inform operational policies, planning and strategic
direction. Feedback from an internal review process is
also fundamental to producing planned improvements
in organisational performance.
Identifying critical success factors – conditions that
must be fulfilled to achieve strategic goals – and set-
ting goals plays a crucial part to ensure an effective
follow-up and measurement of the results. Goals need
to be formulated in such a way that a distinction is
made between outputs and outcomes.
Organisations should consistently and critically moni-
tor the implementation of their strategy and planning,
and update and adapt them whenever necessary.
Assessment: Consider evidence of what the
organisation is doing to
2.1. Gather information relating to the
present and future needs of stakehold-
ers
Examples:
a. Identifying all relevant stakeholders.
b. Systematically gathering and analysing informa-
tion about stakeholders, their needs and expecta-
tions.
c. Regularly gathering and analysing information,
its source, accuracy and quality. This may include
information about important variables such as so-
cial, ecological, economic, legal and demograph-
ic developments.
d. Systematically analysing internal strengths and weak-
nesses (e.g. TQM-diagnosis with CAF or EFQM or
SWOT analysis).
Award a score using the Enablers Panel
10
2.2. Develop, review and update strategy
and planning taking into account the
needs of stakeholders and available
resources
Examples:
a. Developing and applying methods to monitor,
measure and/or evaluate the performance of the
organisation at all levels ensuring the monitoring
of the strategy‘s implementation.
b. Systematically reviewing risks and opportunities
(e.g. SWOT-analysis) and identifying critical suc-
cess factors by regularly assessing these factors in
the organisation’s environment (including political
changes).
c. Evaluating existing tasks in terms of outputs (re-
sults) and outcomes (impacts) and the quality of
the strategic and operations plans.
d. Balancing tasks and resources, long and short
term pressures and stakeholder requirements.
e. Assessing the need to reorganise and improve
strategies and methods of planning.
Award a score using the Enablers Panel
2.3. Implement strategy and planning in the
whole organisation
Examples:
a. Implementing strategy and planning by reaching
agreement and setting priorities, establishing time
frames, appropriate processes and the organisa-
tional structure.
b. Involving stakeholders in the process of deploying
strategy and planning and prioritising stakehold-
ers’ expectations and needs.
c. Translating strategic and operational objectives of
the organisation into relevant plans and tasks for
departmental units and individuals within the or-
ganisation.
Award a score using the Enablers Panel
2.4. Plan, implement and review modernisa-
tion and innovation
Examples:
a. Creating and developing a new culture/readiness
for innovation by training, benchmarking, estab-
lishment of learning laboratories, focusing on the
role of strategic thinking and planning.
b. Systematic monitoring of internal indicators/driv-
ers for change and external demands for mod-
ernisation and innovation.
c. Planning of changes leading towards the process
of modernisation and innovation (e.g. applying
net services) on the basis of discussions with stake-
holders.
d. Integration of instruments and measures; e.g. in-
put + output + outcome – measurement; use of
 TQM principles.
e. Ensuring the deployment of an efficient change
management system which includes the monitor-
ing of progress in innovation.
f. Ensuring the availability of necessary resources to
implement the planned changes.

Award score using the Enablers Panel

11
Criterion 3: People
Definition
People are the organisation. They are the organisa-
tion’s most important asset. The way in which employ-
ees interact with each other and manage the available
resources ultimately decides organisational success.
Respect, dialogue, empowerment and also providing
a safe and healthy environment are fundamental to
ensure the commitment and participation of people on
the organisational route to excellence. The organisa-
tion manages, develops and releases the competences
and full potential of its people at individual and organ-
isation-wide levels in order to support its strategy and
planning and the effective operation of its processes.
Key implications
Criterion 3 assesses whether the organisation aligns
its strategic objectives with its human resources so that
they are identified, developed, deployed and cared
for to achieve optimum utilisation and success. Con-
sideration should be given to widening the scope of
people management to the advantage of both the or-
ganisation and its people. People should be assisted
to achieve their full potential. Taking care of people’s
well-being is an important aspect of people manage-
ment.
When organisations create frameworks to allow em-
ployees to continually develop their own competen-
cies, to assume greater responsibility and to take more
initiative, employees contribute to the development of
the workplace. This can be enabled by making sure
they associate their own performance goals with the
strategic objectives of the organisation and also by in-
volving them in the establishment of policies related to
the recruitment, training, and reward of people.
Finally, criterion 3 spotlights the ability of managers/
leaders and employees to actively cooperate on devel-
oping the organisation, breaking down organisational
silos by creating dialogue, making room for creativity,
innovation and suggestions for improving perform-
ance. This also helps to increase employee satisfac-
tion.
The proper execution of people policies is not just of
concern to the HR department, it depends upon all
leaders, managers and department heads throughout
the organisation, demonstrating that they care about
people issues and they actively promote a culture of
open communication and transparency.
Organisations may, in assessing their performance,
take account of any restrictions on their freedom of
action resulting from national/general public person-
nel policies, pay policies, etc., and indicate how they
work within these restrictions to optimise their people’s
potential.
12
Assessment: Consider evidence on what the
organisation is doing to
3.1. Plan, manage and improve human
resources transparently with regard to
strategy and planning
Examples:
a. Regularly analysing current and future human re-
source needs, taking into account the needs and
expectations of stakeholders.
b. Developing and communicating the human re-
sources management policy based on the strategy
and planning of the organisation.
c. Ensuring HR capability (recruitment, allocation,
development) is available to achieve tasks and
balancing tasks and responsibilities.
d. Monitoring of invested human resources in pro-
ducing and developing net services.
e. Developing and agreeing on a clear policy con-
taining objective criteria with regard to recruit-
ment, promotion, remuneration, rewards and the
assignment of managerial functions.
f. Ensuring good environmental working conditions
throughout the organisation including taking care
of health and safety requirements.
g. Managing recruitment and career development
with regard to fairness of employment, equal op-
portunities and diversity aspects (e.g. gender, sexual
orientation, disability, age, race and religion).
h. Ensuring that conditions are conducive towards
achieving a reasonable work-life balance for em-
ployees.
i. Paying particular attention to the needs of
disadvantaged employees and people with
disabilities.
Award score using the Enablers Panel
3.2. Identify, develop and use competencies
of employees, aligning individual and
organisational goals
Examples:
a. Identifying current competencies at the individual
and organisational levels in terms of knowledge,
skills and attitudes.
b. Discussing, establishing and communicating a
strategy for developing competencies. This in-
cludes an overall agreed training plan based on
current and future organisational and individual
needs (with for example distinctions between man-
datory and optional training programmes).
c. Developing and agreeing on personal training
and development plans for all employees with a
special emphasis on managerial, leadership, abil-
ities to deal with diverse customers/citizens and
 partners. This may also include skills training for
the providing of net services.
d. Developing managerial and leadership skills as
well as relational competences of management
regarding the people of the organisation, the citi-
zens/customers and the partners.
e. Supporting and assisting new employees (e.g. by
means of mentoring, coaching, tutoring).
f. Promoting internal and external mobility of
employees.
g. Developing and promoting modern training meth-
ods (e.g. multimedia approach, on the job train-
ing, e-learning).
h. Planning of training activities and developing
communication techniques in the areas of risk and
conflict of interest management.
i. Assessing the impacts of training and develop-
ment programmes in relation to the costs of the
activities through monitoring and the provision of
cost/benefit analyses.

Award a score using the Enablers Panel

3.3. Involve employees by developing open

dialogue and empowerment

Examples:
a. Promoting a culture of open communication and
dialogue and the encouragement of team work-
ing.
b. Proactively creating an environment for gain-
ing ideas and suggestions from employees and
developing appropriate mechanisms (e.g. sugges-
tion schemes, work groups, brainstorming).
c. Involving employees and their representatives in
the development of plans, strategies, goals, the
design of processes and in the identification and
implementation of improvement activities.
d. Seeking agreement/consensus between managers
and employees on goals and on ways of measur-
ing goal achievement.
e. Regularly conducting staff surveys including pub-
lishing results/summaries/interpretations.
f. Ensuring the employees have an opportunity to
give feedback on their line managers/directors.
g. Consulting with the representatives of employees
(e.g. Trade Unions).

Award a score using the Enablers panel

13
Criterion 4: Partnerships and resources
Definition
How the organisation plans and manages its key part-
nerships – especially with citizens/customers – in order
to support its strategy and planning and the effective
operation of its processes. In this way partnerships are
important resources for the well-functioning of the or-
ganisation.
Next to partnerships, organisations need the more
traditional resources – such as finances, technology,
facilities – to assure their effective functioning. These
are used and developed to support an organisation’s
strategy and its most important processes in order to
achieve the organisation’s goals in the most efficient
way. Presented in a transparent way, organisations
can assure accountability towards citizens/customers
on the legitimate use of available resources.
Key implications
In our constantly changing society with growing com-
plexity, public organisations are required to manage
relationships with other organisations in both the pub-
lic and private sectors in order to realise their strategic
objectives.
Another consequence of this complexity is the need
for an increasing active role of citizens/customers as
key partners. The terms citizens/customers refers to the
citizens’ varying role between stakeholder and service-
user. In this criterion, CAF focuses on the involvement
of citizens in public matters and the development of
public policies and on the openness to their needs and
expectations.
Public organisations are often subject to constraints
and pressures, when managing their resources, over
and above those normally encountered in the private
sector. The ability of public organisations to gener-
ate additional financial resources may be limited as
may its freedom to allocate, or reallocate, its funds
to the services it wishes to deliver. It is therefore criti-
cal that they measure the efficiency and effectiveness
of the services they are charged to deliver. Full finan-
cial management, internal control and accountan-
cy systems are the basis for sound cost accounting.
Although public organisations often have little say
in resource allocation, demonstrating the organisa-
tions ability to deliver more and improved services for
less cost, creates the opportunity for more innovative
services or products to be introduced more quickly.
It is important to identify the organisation’s knowledge
and information requirements and these should feed
into the strategy and planning process reviews. The or-
ganisation should ensure that appropriate knowledge
and information is made available timeously and in
easily accessible formats to enable employees to do
their jobs effectively.
14
The organisation should also ensure that it shares criti-
cal information and knowledge with key partners and
other stakeholders according to their needs.
Assessment: Consider evidence on what the
organisation is doing to
4.1. Develop and implement key partnership
relations
Examples:
a. Identifying potential strategic partners and the na-
ture of the relationship (e.g. purchaser-provider,
co-production, net services).
b. Establishing appropriate partnership agreements
taking into account the nature of the relation-
ship (e.g. purchaser – provider, collaborator/
co-provider/co-producer of products/services,
co-operation, net services).
c. Defining each party’s responsibilities in managing
partnerships including controls.
d. Regularly monitoring and evaluating processes,
results and the nature of partnerships.
e. Stimulating and organising task-specific partner-
ships and developing and implementing joint
projects with other public sector organisations.
f. Creating conditions for exchange of employees
with partners.
g. Stimulating activities in the area of corporate so-
cial responsibility.
Award a score using the Enablers Panel
4.2. Develop and implement partnerships
with the citizens/customers
Examples:
a. Encouraging the involvement of citizens/customers
in public matters and in political decision-making
processes (e.g. consultation groups, survey, opin-
ion polls, quality circles).
b. Being open to ideas, suggestions and complaints
of citizens/customers and developing and using
appropriate mechanisms to collect them (e.g. by
means of surveys, consultation groups, question-
naires, complaints boxes, opinion polls, etc.).
c. Ensuring a proactive information policy (e.g. about
the competencies of the several public authorities,
about their processes, etc.).
d. Ensuring transparency of the organisation as well
as its decisions and development (e.g. by publish-
ing annual reports, holding press conferences and
posting information on the Internet).
e. Actively encouraging citizens/customers to organ-
ise themselves, express their needs and require-
ments and supporting citizen groups.
Award a score using the Enablers Panel
4.3. Manage Finances
Examples:
a. Aligning financial management with strategic ob-
jectives.
b. Ensuring financial and budgetary transparency.
c. Ensuring the cost efficient management of
financial resources.
d. Introducing innovative systems of budgetary and
cost planning (e.g. multi-annual budgets, pro-
gramme of project budgets, gender budgets).
e. Permanently monitoring the costs of delivery and
service standards of products and services offered
by the organisation including the involvement of
organisational units.
f. Delegating and decentralising financial responsi-
bilities and balancing them with central controlling.
g. Basing investment decisions and financial control
on cost/benefit-analysis.
h. Developing and introducing modern financial
controlling (e.g. through internal financial audits,
etc.) and promoting transparency of the financial
control for all employees.
i. Creating parallel financial and cost account-
ing systems including balance sheets (capital
accounts).
j. Ensuring internal cost allocation (e.g. transfer pric-
es: units are charged for internal services).
k. Including non-financial performance data in
budget documents.
l. Introducing comparative analyses (e.g. bench-
marking) between different actors and organisa-
tions.
Award a score using the Enablers Panel
4.4. Manage information and knowledge
Examples:
a. Developing systems for managing, storing and
assessing information and knowledge in the or-
ganisation in accordance with strategic and op-
erational objectives.
b. Ensuring that externally available relevant informa-
tion is gained, processed and used effectively.
c. Constantly monitoring the organisation’s informa-
tion and knowledge, ensuring its relevance, cor-
rectness, reliability and security. Also aligning it
with strategic planning and the current and future
needs of stakeholders.
d. Developing internal channels to cascade informa-
tion throughout the organisation to ensure that
all employees have access to the information and
knowledge relevant to their tasks and objectives.
e. Ensuring access and exchange of relevant infor-
mation with all stakeholders and presenting infor-
mation and data in a user-friendly way.
f. Ensuring, as far as is practicable, that key informa-
tion and knowledge of employees is retained with-
in the organisation in the event of their leaving the
organisation.
Award a score using the Enablers Panel
4.5. Manage Technology
Examples:
a. Implementing an integrated policy of tech-
nology management in accordance with the
strategic and operational objectives.
b. Efficiently applying appropriate technology to:
– Manage tasks.
– Manage knowledge.
– Support learning and improvement activities.
– Support the interaction with stakeholders and
partners.
– Support the development and maintenance of
internal and external networks.
Award a score using the Enablers Panel
4.6. Manage facilities
Examples:
a. Balancing effectiveness and efficiency of physical
locations with the needs and expectations of us-
ers (e.g. centralisation versus decentralisation of
buildings).
b. Ensuring a safe, cost efficient and ergonomically
suitable use of office facilities based on strategic
and operational objectives, accessibility by pub-
lic transport, the personnel needs of employees,
local culture and physical constraints (e.g. open
plan offices vs. individual offices, mobile offices)
and technical equipment (e.g. number of PCs and
copy-machines by service).
c. Ensuring an efficient, cost effective, planned and
sustainable maintenance of buildings, offices and
equipment.
d. Ensuring an efficient, cost effective and sustain-
able use of transport and energy resources.
e. Ensuring appropriate physical accessibility of
buildings in line with the needs and expectations
of employees and citizens/customers (e.g. disa-
bled access to parking or public transport).
f. Developing an integrated policy for managing
physical assets, including their safe recycling/dis-
posal, e.g. by direct management or subcontract-
ing.
Award a score using the Enablers Panel
15
Criterion 5: Processes
Definition
How the organisation identifies, manages, improves
and develops its key processes in order to support
strategy and planning. Innovation and the need to
generate increasing value for its citizens/customers
and other stakeholders are two of the main drivers in
process development.
Key implications
Each organisation that performs well is run by
many processes, each process being a set of con-
secutive activities that transform resources or in-
puts into results or outputs and outcomes, there-
by adding value. These processes can be of a
different nature. The core processes are critical to the
delivery of products or services. Management process-
es steer the organisation and support processes de-
liver the necessary resources. Only the most important
of these processes, the key processes, are the object
of the assessment in the CAF. A key to the identifica-
tion, evaluation and improvement of key processes is
how effectively they contribute in achieving the mis-
sion of the organisation. Involving citizens/customers
in the different stages of process management and
taking into account their expectations contributes to
their overall quality and reliability.
The nature of processes in public service organisations
may vary greatly, from relatively abstract activities such
as support for policy development or regulation of
economic activities, to very concrete activities of serv-
ice provision. In all cases, an organisation needs to be
able to identify the key processes, which it performs
in order to deliver its expected outputs and outcomes,
considering the expectations of citizens/customers and
other stakeholders.
The role of citizens/customers could operate at 3 lev-
els: 1) the involvement of representative citizens/cus-
tomers, associations or ad hoc panels of citizens in the
design of the organisation’s services and products, 2)
collaboration with citizens/customers in the implemen-
tation of services and products, 3) empowerment of
citizens/customers in order to realise or access services
and products themselves.
Cross-functional processes are common in public
administration. It is vital to successfully integrate the
management of such processes, since from that inte-
gration the effectiveness and efficiency of processes
greatly depend. To that aim, well experimented forms
of organisational integration should be pursued, such
as the creation of cross-functional process manage-
ment teams with the appointment of team leaders.
Examples of Public Administration processes are:
* Core processes
– core service provision related to the mission(s)
of the organisation, e.g. collecting taxes and
16
paying social security benefits
– providing customer service through enquiry
handling
– formulation and implementation of legislative
policy
* Management processes
– assessment of the quality of tax collection
– decision-making processes
* Support processes
– budgeting and planning
– processes for human resource management
For support units, key processes will be linked to their
support function of the organisation which is responsi-
ble for the delivery of the core business.
It is essential that processes are continually reviewed as
design, innovation and new technologies arrive at an
increasing pace to the market. In order to take advan-
tage of potential improvements public organisations
need to ensure that they have mechanisms in place to
enable them to receive feedback from all stakeholders
on product and service enhancements.
Assessment: Consider evidence on what the
organisation is doing to
5.1. Identify, design, manage and improve
processes on an ongoing basis
Examples:
a. Identifying, describing and documenting key proc-
esses on an ongoing basis.
b. Identifying process owners and assigning
responsibilities to them.
c. Involving employees and other external stakehold-
ers in the design and development of key proc-
esses.
d. Allocating resources to processes based on the
relative importance of their contribution to the
strategic aims of the organisation.
e. Gathering, recording and understanding le-
gal requirements and other regulations relevant
to the processes of the organisation, analys-
ing them and making proposals for streamlin-
ing legally integrated processes aimed at elimi-
nating unnecessary administrative burdens and
bureaucracy.
f. Implementing process indicators and setting citi-
zen/customer-oriented performance goals.
g. Co-ordinating and synchronising processes.
h. Monitoring and evaluating impacts of net serv-
ices/e-gov on the organisation‘s processes (e.g.
efficiency, quality, effectiveness).
i. In conjunction with relevant stakeholders, improv-
ing processes on the basis of their measured ef-
ficiency, effectiveness and results (outputs and out-
comes).
j. Analysing and evaluating key processes, risks and
critical success factors taking the objectives of the
organisation and its changing environment into
 consideration. 5.3. Innovate processes involving
k. Identifying, designing and implementing citizens/customers
process changes leading to one-stop-principle
services. Examples:
l. Measuring and reviewing the effectiveness of a. Active approach to learning from innovations of
process changes and carrying out benchmarking other organisations nationally and internationally.
to drive improvement. b. Involving stakeholders in process innovations e.g.
by piloting new services and e-government solu-
Award a score using the Enablers Panel tions.
c. Involving citizens/customers and stakeholders in
process innovations.
5.2. Develop and deliver citizen/customer- d. Providing the resources necessary for process in-
oriented services and products novations.
e. Actively identify, analyse and overcome obstacles to
Examples: innovation.
a. Involving citizens/customers in the design and
improvement of services and products (e.g. by Award a score using the Enablers Panel
means of surveys/feedback focus-groups/inquiries
/

concerning the suitability of services or products

and whether they are effective taking into account
gender and diversity aspects).
b. Involving citizens/customers and other stakehold-
ers in the development of quality standards for
services, products and information for citizens/
customers.
c. Develop clear guidelines and regulations using
plain language.
d. Involving citizens/customers in the design
and development of information sources and
channels.
e. Ensuring the availability of appropriate and
reliable information with an aim to assist and sup-
port citizens/customers.
f. Promoting accessibility of the organisation (e.g.
flexible opening hours and documents in a variety
of formats e.g. appropriate languages, internet,
posters, brochures, Braille).
g. Promoting electronic communication and interac-
tion with citizens/customers.
h. Developing sound response query handling and
complaint management systems and procedures.

Award a score using the Enablers Panel

17
Results

From Criterion 6 onwards, the focus of the assessment shifts from Enablers to Results. In the Results criteria
we measure perceptions: what our people, citizens/customers and society think of us. We also have internal
performance indicators which show how well we are doing against the targets we may have set for ourselves
– the outcomes. The assessment of results requires a different set of responses, so the responses from this point
onwards are based on the Results Assessment Panel (see CAF scoring and Assessment panels).

19
Criterion 6: Citizen/customer-oriented
results
Definition
The results the organisation is achieving in relation to
the satisfaction of its citizens/customers with the or-
ganisation and the products/services it provides.
Key implications
Public sector organisations can have a complex rela-
tionship with the public. In some cases it can be char-
acterised as a customer relationship – especially in the
case of direct service delivery by public sector organi-
sations – and in other cases may be described as a citi-
zen relationship, where the organisation is involved in
determining and enforcing the environment in which
economic and social life is conducted. Since the two
cases are not always clearly separable, this complex
relationship will be described as a citizens/customers
relationship. Citizens/customers are the recipients or
beneficiaries of the activity, products or services of the
public sector organisations. Citizens/customers need
to be defined but not necessarily restricted to only the
primary users of the services provided. Public organi-
sations deliver services according to local and/or cen-
tral government policy and are held accountable for
their performance to political stakeholders. Perform-
ance against statutory requirements is covered under
organisational results (Criterion 9). Public policy tar-
gets are those set by national, regional and local gov-
ernments which may or may not be citizens/customers
driven. Citizens/customers satisfaction measures are
normally based on areas that have been identified as
important by customer groups and based on what the
organisation is able to improve within its specific area
of service.
It is important for all kinds of public sector organisa-
tions to directly measure the satisfaction of their citi-
zens/customers with regard to the overall image of the
organisation, the products and services the organisa-
tion provides, the openness of the organisation and
the extent to which it involves citizens/customers. Or-
ganisations typically use citizen/customer question-
naires or surveys to record levels of satisfaction, but
they may also use other complementary tools such as
focus groups or user panels.
Some examples of information which may be collected
include data on products and services, image of the
organisation, politeness, helpfulness and friendliness
of staff.
Assessment: Consider what results the organisation
has achieved to meet the needs and expectations
of citizens and customers, through:
20
6.1. Results of citizen/customer satisfaction
measurements
Examples:
a. Results regarding the overall image of the organi-
sation (e.g. friendliness and fairness of treatment;
flexibility and ability to address individual solu-
tions).
b. Results regarding involvement and participation.
c. Results regarding accessibility (e.g. opening and
waiting times, one-stop-shops).
d. Results relating to products and services (e.g.
quality, reliability, compliance with quality stand-
ards, processing time, quality of advice given to
the customers/citizens).
Award a score using the Results Panel
6.2. Indicators of citizen/customer-oriented
measurements
Examples:
Indicators regarding the overall image of the
organisation
a. Number and processing time of complaints (e.g.
resolution of conflict of interest cases).
b. Extent of public trust towards the organisation and
its services or products.
c. Waiting time.
d. Handling/processing time of services delivery.
e. Extent of employee training in relation to the ef-
fective handling of citizen/customer relationships
(e.g. professionalism and friendly communication
with, and treatment of, citizens/customers).
f. Indicators of complying with diversity and gender
aspects.
Indicators regarding involvement
g. Extent of involvement of stakeholders in
the design and the delivery of services and
products and/or the design of decision-making
processes.
h. Suggestions received and recorded.
i. Implementation and extent of use of new and in-
novative ways in dealing with citizens/customers.
Indicators regarding products and services
j. Adherence to published service standards (e.g.
citizens‘ charters).
k. Number of files returned back with errors
and/or cases requiring repeated processing/com-
pensation.
l. Extent of efforts to improve availability, accuracy
and transparency of information.
Award a score using the Results Panel
Criterion 7: People results
Definition
The results the organisation is achieving in relation to
the competence, motivation, satisfaction and perform-
ance of its people.
Key implications
This criterion addresses the satisfaction of all the peo-
ple in the organisation. Organisations typically use
people (employee) surveys to record satisfaction lev-
els, but they may also use other complementary tools
such as focus groups, termination interviews and ap-
praisals. They may also examine the performance of
people and the level of skills development.
Sometimes external constraints may limit the organi-
sation’s freedom in this area. The constraints and how
the organisation overcomes or influences constraints
should therefore be clearly presented.
It is important for all kinds of public sector organisa-
tions to directly record people results concerning the
employees’ image of the organisation and its mission,
the working environment, the organisation’s leader-
ship and management systems, career development,
the development of personal skills and the products
and services the organisation provides.
Organisations should have a range of internal people-
related performance indicators through which they can
measure the results they have achieved in relation to
targets and expectations in the areas of people over-
all satisfaction, their performance, the development of
skills, their motivation and their level of involvement in
the organisation.
Assessment: Consider what results the organisation
has achieved to meet the needs and expectations
of its people, through:
7.1. Results of people satisfaction and
motivation measurements
Examples:
Results regarding overall satisfaction with:
a. The overall image and the overall performance of
the organisation (for society, citizens/customers,
other stakeholders).
b. The level of employees´ awareness of conflicts of
interest.
c. The level of employees´ involvement in the organ-
isation and its mission.
Results regarding satisfaction with management and
management systems:
d. The organisation‘s top management and middle
management ability to steer the organisation (e.g.
setting goals, allocating resources, etc.) and com-
munication.
e. Rewarding individual and team efforts.
f. The organisation‘s approach to innovation.
Results regarding satisfaction with working
conditions:
g. The working atmosphere and the organisation‘s
culture (e.g. how to deal with conflict, grievances
or personnel problems).
h. The approach to social issues (e.g. flexibility of
working hours, balance between work and per-
sonal matters, health).
i. The handling of equal opportunities and fairness
of treatment and behaviour in the organisation.
Results regarding motivation and satisfaction with ca-
reer and skills development:
j. The ability of the management to promote HRM-
strategy and systematic competency development
and the employees’ knowledge about the goals of
the organisation.
k. Results regarding people‘s willingness to accept
changes.
Award a score using the Results Panel
7.2. Indicators of people results
Examples:
a. Indicators regarding satisfaction (e.g. levels of
absenteeism or sickness, rates of staff turnover,
number of complaints).
b. Indicators regarding performance (e.g. measures
of productivity, results of evaluations).
c. Levels of using information and communication
technologies by employees.
d. Indicators regarding skills development (e.g. par-
ticipation and success rates in training activities,
effectiveness of training budgets).
e. Evidence on the ability to deal with citizens/cus-
tomers and to respond to their needs.
f. Degree of employee rotation inside the organisa-
tion (mobility).
g. Indicators regarding motivation and involvement
(e.g. response rates for staff surveys, number of
proposals for innovation, participation in internal
discussion groups).
h. Amount/frequency of rewarding individuals and
teams.
i. Number of reported possible conflict of interest
cases.
Award a score using the Results Panel
21
Criterion 8: Society results
Definition
The results the organisation is achieving in satisfying the
needs and the expectations of the local, national and
international community. This may include the percep-
tion of the organisation‘s approach and contribution to
quality of life, the environment and the preservation of
global resources and the organisations‘ own internal
measures of its effectiveness in contributing to society.
tional and international level.
h. General public‘s view about the organisation’s
openness and transparency.
i. Organisation‘s ethical behaviour.
j. The tone of media coverage received.
Award a score using the Results Panel
8.2. Indicators of societal performance es-
tablished by the organisation

Key Implications Examples:

Public Sector organisations have an impact on society
by the very nature of their primary business or statutory
mandate, and the outputs of these core activities will
affect direct and indirect beneficiaries. These analyses
of the immediate effects on the beneficiaries should be
presented in the citizen/customer satisfaction (Cr. 6)
and key performance results criteria (Cr. 9).
Criterion 8 will measure the intended or unintended
impacts on society, i.e. the global effects of the organi-
sation’s policies beyond its primary missions/ statutory
mandate or core activities. In this direction, the analy-
sis will consider the impacts derived from planned ob-
jectives as well as the unintended consequences i.e.
side effects which may have positive and/or negative
effects on society.
The measures cover both qualitative measures of per-
ception and quantitative indicators.
They can be related to
– economic impact
– social dimension e.g. disabled people
– quality of life
– impact on the environment
– quality of democracy.
a. Relationship with relevant authorities, groups and
community representatives.
b. The amount of media coverage received.
c. Support dedicated to socially disadvantaged citi-
zens.
d. Support for integration and acceptance of ethnic
minorities.
e. Support for international development projects.
f. Support for civic engagement of citizens/custom-
ers and employees.
g. Productive exchange of knowledge and informa-
tion with others.
h. Programmes to prevent citizens/customers and
employees from health risks and accidents.
i. Organisation activities to preserve and sustain the
resources (e.g. degree of compliance with environ-
mental standards, use of recycled materials, use
of environmentally friendly modes of transport,
reduction of nuisance, harms and noise, reduction
in use of utilities e.g. water, electricity, gas).
Award a score using the Results Panel

Assessment: Consider what the organisation has

achieved in respect of impact on society, with
reference to

8.1. Results of societal measurements per-

ceived by the stakeholders

Examples:
a. General public‘s awareness of the impact of how
the organisation´s performance affects the quality
of citizens/customers´ life.
b. General reputation of the organisation (e.g. as an
employer/contributor to local/global society).
c. Economic impact on society at the local, regional,
national and international level.
d. The approach to environmental issues (e.g. pro-
tection against noise, air pollution).
e. Environmental impact on society at the local, re-
gional, national and international level.
f. Impact on society with regard to sustainability at the
local, regional, national and international level.
g. Impact on society taking into account quality of
democratic participation at the local, regional, na-
22
Criterion 9: Key performance results 9.2. Internal results

Definition
The results the organisation is achieving with regard
to its strategy and planning related to the needs and
demands of the different stakeholders (i.e. external re-
sults); and the results the organisation has achieved in
relation to its management and improvement (internal
results).
Key implications
Key performance results relate to whatever the or-
ganisation has determined are essential, measurable
achievements for the success of the organisation in the
short and longer term.
They represent the capacity of policies and processes
to reach goals and objectives including specific tar-
gets, which are politically driven.
Examples:
Results in the field of management and innovation
a. Evidence of involvement of all stakeholders in the
organisation.
b. Results of the establishment of partnerships and
results of joint activities.
c. Evidence of ability to satisfy and balance the needs
of all the stakeholders.
d. Evidence of success in improving and innovating
organisational strategies, structures and/or proc-
esses.
e. Evidence of improved use of information technol-
ogy (in managing internal knowledge and/or in
internal and external communication and net-
working).
f. Results of inspections and audits.
g. Process performance.

Key performance results can be divided into: Financial results

1) External results: the measures of the effectiveness
of policies and services/products in terms of the
capacity to improve the condition of direct ben-
eficiaries: the achievement of key activities’ goals
in terms of a) outputs – services and products and
b) outcomes – effects of the organisation’s core
activities on external stakeholders (effectiveness).
2) Internal results: the measures of the internal func-
tioning of the organisation: its management, im-
provement and financial performance (efficiency
and economy).
h. Extent to which budgets and financial targets are
met.
i. Extent or trend to which part the organisation re-
lies on own fiscal resources and revenues from
fees and earnings from selling services/goods.
j. Evidence of ability to satisfy and balance the
financial interests of all stakeholders.
k. Measures of effective use of operating funds.
l. Results of financial inspections and audits.
Award a score using the Results Panel

These measures are likely to be closely linked to policy

and strategy (Criterion 2), partnerships and resources
(Criterion 4) and processes (Criterion 5).

Assessment: Consider the evidence of defined

goals achieved by the organisation in relation to

9.1. External results: outputs and outcomes

to goals

Examples:
a. The extent to which the goals are achieved in terms
of output (delivery of products or services).
b. Improved quality of service or product delivery
with respect to measurement results.
c. Cost efficiency (outputs achieved at the lowest pos-
sible cost).
d. Results of inspections and audits.
e. Results of participation in competitions, quality
awards and the quality management system certi-
fication (Excellence Awards – League table/Bench-
mark).
f. Results of benchmarking/bench learning activi-
ties.
g. Cost effectiveness (outcomes achieved at the low-
est possible cost).

Award a score using the Results Panel

23
CAF Scoring and assessment panels

Why score? 1. CAF classical scoring

Allocating a score to each sub criterion and criterion of
the CAF model has 4 main aims:
1. to provide information and give an indication on the
direction to follow for improvement activities.
2. to measure your own progress, if you carry out
CAF assessments regularly, each year or eve-
ry two years, considered to be good practice
according to most quality approaches.
3. to identify good practices as indicated by high
scoring for Enablers and Results. High scoring of
Results are usually an indication of the existence of
good practices in the Enablers field.
4. to help to find valid partners to learn from (bench-
marking: How we compare; and bench learning:
What we learn from each other).
This cumulative way of scoring helps the organisation
to become more acquainted with the PDCA-cycle and
directs it more positively towards a quality approach.
The scores as defined in the CAF 2002 version are
presented in the column “level 2002”. In the enablers
assessment panel the PDCA phase is in place only
when bench learning activities are part of the continu-
ous improvement cycle.
In the results assessment panel a distinction is made
between the trend of the results and the achievement
of the targets.

With regard to bench learning however, it should be

noted that comparing CAF scores has limited value
and carries a risk, particularly if it is done without
experienced external assessors trained to validate
the scores in a homogeneous way in different public
organisations. The main aim of bench learning is to
compare the different ways of managing the enablers
and achieving results. The scores, if validated, can be
a starting point in this regard. That is how bench learn-
ing can contribute to improvement.

How to score?

New in the CAF 2006 is that it provides two ways of

scoring. The “classical” CAF scoring is the updated
version of the CAF 2002 assessment panels. The “fine-
tuned” CAF scoring is suitable for organisations that
wish to reflect in more detail the analysis of the sub
criteria. It allows you to score – for each sub criterion
– all phases of the Plan Do Check Act (PDCA) cycle
simultaneously.

The PDCA-cycle is the fundament of both ways of scor-

ing. Compared to 2002 when the scale was set at 0-5,
the scale has been revised and set at 0-100, this scale
being more widely used and generally accepted at an
international level.

24
Assessment panels 1

0(!3% %.!",%230!.%, 3#/2% ,%6%,

7EARENOTACTIVEINTHISFIELD
  
7EHAVENOINFORMATIONORVERYANECDOTAL

0,!. 7EHAVEAPLANTODOTHIS   

$/ 7EAREIMPLEMENTINGDOINGTHIS   

#(%#+ 7ECHECKREVIEWIFWEDOTHERIGHTTHINGSINTHERIGHTWAY   

!#4 /NTHEBASISOFCHECKINGREVIEWSWEADJUSTIFNECESSARY   

%VERYTHINGWEDOWEPLANIMPLEMENTCHECKANDADJUSTREGULARLYANDWE

0$#!   
LEARNFROMOTHERS7EAREINACONTINUOUSIMPROVEMENTCYCLEONTHISISSUE

Instructions:
– Choose the level that you have reached: Plan, Do,
Check or Act. This way of scoring is cumulative:
you need to have accomplished a phase (e.g.:
Check) before reaching the next phase (e.g.: Act).
– Give a score between 0 and 100 according to the
level that you have reached inside the phase. The
scale on 100 allows you to specify the degree of
deployment and implementation of the approach.

RESULTS PANEL 1 SCORE LEVEL 2002

No results are measured
0-10 0
and / or no information is available.

Results are measured and show negative trends

11-30 1
and / or results do not meet relevant targets.

Results show flat trends

31-50 2
and / or some relevant targets are met.

Results show improving trends

51-70 3
and / or most of the relevant targets are met.

Results show substantial progress

71-90 4
and / or all the relevant targets are met.

Excellent and sustained results are achieved. All the relevant targets are met.
91-100 5
Positive comparisons with relevant organisations for all the key results are made.

Instructions:
– Give a score between 0 and 100 for each sub cri- – For each level, you can take into account either
terion on a scale divided in 6 levels (correspond- the trend, either the achievement of the target or
ing to the results panel of the CAF 2002). both.

25
2. CAF fine-tuned scoring
The fine-tuned scoring is a simultaneous way of scor-
ing closer to the reality where e.g. many public organi-
sations are doing things (Do) but sometimes without
enough planning (Plan).
– In the enablers panel, the emphasis lays more on
the PDCA as a cycle and progress can be repre-
sented as a spiral where in each turn of the cir-
cle improvement may take place in each phase:
PLAN, DO, CHECK and ACT.
– Bench learning activities are normally taken into
account at the highest level of all the phases.
– This way of scoring gives more information on the
areas where improvement is mostly needed.
– The results panel shows you if you have to acceler-
ate the trend or focus on the targets achievement.
Instructions for each sub criterion:
– Read the definition of each phase (Plan, Do, Check
and Act);
– Find evidence of strengths and weaknesses and
give a global judgement for each phase in the ap-
propriate box. This judgement can be illustrated by
some examples or evidence in order not to over-
complicate the scoring exercise. However, those
who want to go further can put all the examples or
evidence in the different boxes of the 4 phases and
calculate the average for each phase.
– Calculate the sum of the four phase scores and
divide by 4 in order to obtain a score on 100 for
the enabler sub criterion. This score should be
plausible and consistent e.g. total scoring should
not exceed 40 if any of the four evaluation criteria
(Plan, Do, Check, Act) is lower than or equal to
20. It should not exceed 60 if any of the criteria is
lower than 30.

Assessment panels 2

Enablers Panel 2
SCALE 0-10 11-30 31-50 51-70 71-90 91-100
EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

No Some weak Some good Strong Very strong Excellent

evidence evidence, evidence evidence evidence evidence,
PHASE or just related to related to related to related to compared
some ideas some areas relevant most areas all areas with other
areas organisations,
related to all
areas.

Planning is based on stakeholders’

needs and expectations. Planning is
PLAN deployed throughout the relevant parts
of the organisation on a regular basis.
SCORE

Execution is managed through defined

processes and responsibilities and
DO diffused throughout the relevant parts
of the organisation on a regular basis
SCORE
Areas of improvement
Defined processes are monitored with
relevant indicators and reviewed
CHECK throughout the relevant parts of the
organisation on a regular basis
SCORE

Correction and improvement actions

are taken following the check results
ACT throughout the relevant parts of the
organisation on a regular basis
SCORE

TOTAL / 400
SCORE / 100

26
 The above findings have been placed in the following
EXAMPLE of a fine-tuned scoring: Enablers – sub Enabler Matrix, to help elaborate a global scoring for
criterion 1.1: the sub criterion: Notice: that does not necessarily
mean giving scores to the individual examples; the
Provide direction to the organisation by developing blank boxes of the matrix are used as a memo pad,
its mission, vision and values to pass from the evidences collected during the sub
criterion assessment to a global sub criterion scoring,
and as a way to guide the discussion in the consensus
meeting.
Synthesis of the evidence emerged in self-assessments
(starting points for improvement planning and basis
for scoring).
1.1.a. A vision and a mission for the administration
was elaborated three years ago. It was re-
quested by the director general and the dis-
cussion involved all the first line managers. An
elegant, coloured card with the vision and mis-
sion statement was distributed to all employ-
ees.
1.1.b Nothing has been done yet in the area of val-
ues statement and code of conduct. The Hu-
man Resources Manager has developed a
project to this end. Middle management will
be invited to a seminar to reflect together on
the values of the organisation. The values will
be crystallised into teaching what positions
have to be taken in difficult situations.
1.1.c Employees, customers/citizens and other
stakeholders have not been involved up to
now in the vision and mission definition proc-
ess. However, awareness of the importance of
such involvements arose two years ago, when
some managers of our administration partici-
pated in TQM Seminars, particularly one dedi-
cated to the CAF model. The decision was then
taken to make internal and external surveys to
collect employees’ and citizens perceptions.
Results indicated that middle managers and
employees considered the vision and mission
as “image” statements, totally detached from
reality and that the objectives quite often did
not seem in tune with such statements. As far
as customers are concerned, surveys indicated
that alignment of management perceptions
with customer perceptions is needed. Meet-
ings with managers and employees and with
representatives of citizens have been planned
and will take place soon. The decision was
also taken to conduct employees and custom-
er surveys every year. An administration wide
self-assessment is also being planned.
1.1.d The above mentioned surveys should guaran-
tee that in the future the vision and mission
statements will be periodically reviewed and
updated taking into accounts customer/stake-
holder needs and expectations; that employ-
ee’s involvement will increase as well as com-
munication within the organization.

27
 %NABLERS0ANEL
3#!,%            
%6)$%.#% %6)$%.#% %6)$%.#% %6)$%.#% %6)$%.#% %6)$%.#% %6)$%.#%

.O 3OMEWEAK 3OMEGOOD 3TRONG 6ERYSTRONG %XCELLENT

EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE
0(!3% ORJUST RELATEDTO RELATEDTO RELATEDTO RELATEDTO COMPARED
SOMEIDEAS SOMEAREAS RELEVANT MOSTAREAS ALLAREAS WITHOTHER
AREAS ORGANISATIONS
RELATEDTOALL
AREAS

0LANNINGISBASEDONSTAKEHOLDERS B
NEEDSANDEXPECTATIONS0LANNINGIS
0,!. DEPLOYEDTHROUGHOUTTHERELEVANTPARTS
OFTHEORGANISATIONONAREGULARBASIS
3#/2%  

%XECUTIONISMANAGEDTHROUGHDEFINED A
PROCESSESANDRESPONSIBILITIESAND
$/ DIFFUSEDTHROUGHOUTTHERELEVANTPARTS
OFTHEORGANISATIONONAREGULARBASIS
3#/2%  

$EFINEDPROCESSESAREMONITOREDWITH C
RELEVANTINDICATORSANDREVIEWED
#(%#+ THROUGHOUTTHERELEVANTPARTSOFTHE
ORGANISATIONONAREGULARBASIS
3#/2%  

#ORRECTIONANDIMPROVEMENTACTIONS D
ARETAKENFOLLOWINGTHECHECKRESULTS
!#4 THROUGHOUTTHERELEVANTPARTSOFTHE
ORGANISATIONONAREGULARBASIS
3#/2%  

4/4!, 
3#/2% 

28
 2ESULTS0ANEL
3#!,%            

42%.$3 .O .EGATIVETREND &LATTRENDOR 3USTAINED 3UBSTANTIAL 0OSITIVECOMPAR

MEASUREMENT MODESTPROGRESS PROGRESS PROGRESS ISONWITHRELEVANT
ORGANISATIONSFOR
ALLRESULTS
3#/2%

4!2'%43 .OORANECDOTAL 2ESULTSDONOT &EWTARGETSARE 3OMERELEVANT -OSTOFTHE !LLTHETARGETSARE

INFORMATION MEETTARGETS MET TARGETSAREMET RELEVANTTARGETS MET
AREMET

3#/2%
4/4!,
3#/2%

Instructions
– Consider separately the trend of your results for 3
years and the targets achieved in the last year.
– Give a score for the trend between 0 and 100 on
a scale divided in 6 levels.
– Give a score for the targets achievement of the last
year between 0 and 100 on a scale divided in 6
levels.
– Calculate the sum for the trends and targets
achievement and divide by 2 in order to obtain a
score on 100 for the result sub criterion.
EXAMPLE of a fine-tuned CAF scoring:
Results – sub criterion 9.1:
Key performance results. External results.
Synthesis of the evidence emerged in self-as-
sessments (starting points for improvement
planning and basis for scoring).
In preparation on the strategic meeting in the begin-
ning of the new working year, a report was prepared
for the board of directors on the key performance
results of last year in order to optimise the strategic
planning for the next year. The conclusions of the re-
port were clear: the performance’s goals were met for
more than 50% and in comparison with the year be-
fore a progress of 10% was established. The apprecia-
tion of these conclusions was far from anonymous and
gave way to intensive discussions among the members
of the board.

2ESULTS0ANEL n3CORING
3#!,%            

42%.$3 .O .EGATIVETREND &LATTRENDOR 3USTAINED 3UBSTANTIAL 0OSITIVECOMPAR

MEASUREMENT MODESTPROGRESS PROGRESS PROGRESS ISONWITHRELEVANT
ORGANISATIONSFOR
ALLRESULTS
3#/2% 

4!2'%43 .OORANECDOTAL 2ESULTSDONOT &EWTARGETSARE 3OMERELEVANT -OSTOFTHE !LLTHETARGETSARE

INFORMATION MEETTARGETS MET TARGETSAREMET RELEVANTTARGETS MET
AREMET

3#/2% 
4/4!, 
3#/2% 

29
Guidelines for improving organisations
using CAF
The process of continuous improvement can be de-
signed and carried out in a number of ways. The size
of the organisation, the culture and prior experience
with Total Quality Management tools are some of the
parameters that help to determine what the most ap-
propriate way of launching the TQM approach will be.
In this chapter we have identified a 10 step process of
continuous improvement with CAF that may be consid-
ered relevant to most organisations.
It is important to emphasise that the advice given here
is based on the experience of the many organisations
that have used CAF. However each improvement proc-
ess is unique and therefore this description should be
seen as an inspiration for the people responsible for
the process of self-assessment rather than as a precise
manual for the process.
Phase 1 – The start of the CAF journey
Step 1 DECIDE HOW TO ORGANISE AND
PLAN THE SELF-ASSESSMENT
A high level of commitment and shared owner-
ship between the senior management and the peo-
ple of the organisation are most crucial elements in
securing the success of the self-assessment process.
In order to gain commitment and ownership, the expe-
rience of many organisations shows that a clear man-
agement decision through a sound consultative process
with the stakeholders of the organisation is necessary.
This decision should clearly illustrate the willingness of
the management to be actively involved in the process
by recognising the added value of the self-assessment
and guaranteeing the openness of mind, respect for the
results and readiness to start improvement actions
afterwards. It also includes the commitment to set aside
the resources needed to carry out the self-assessment
in a professional way.
Knowledge about the potential benefits of a CAF self-
assessment and information about the structure of the
model and the process of self-assessment are neces-
sary elements in providing management with a basis
for decision making. It is very important for all manag-
ers to be convinced of these benefits from the outset.
30
Survey 2005 – The most important benefits of
a CAF self-assessment
The CAF users’ survey of 2005 shows that major ben-
efits of a self-assessment include:
– Effective identification of the strengths of the or-
ganisation and the areas where improvement has
to be made
– Identification of relevant improvement ac-
tions
– Increased level of awareness and communication
throughout the organisation
– People started to become aware and interested in
quality issues
In relation to other TQM tools the CAF users generally
find CAF to be easy to use, low cost and well adapted
to the public sector.
In this phase it is vital that one or more persons in the
organisation take responsibility for securing these basic
principles. A good idea is to contact the organisation
responsible for dissemination of CAF in your country
(for information on this see www.eipa.eu) and either
ask them to make a presentation of the CAF model or
get information on/from other organisations that have
already used the model and are willing to share their
experience.
In order for the people of the organisation to support
the process of self-assessment it is important that con-
sultation takes place before the final decision about
carrying out self-assessment has been made. Apart
from the general benefits of carrying out self-assess-
ment, experience shows that many people find CAF to
be an excellent opportunity to gain more insight into
their organisation and want to be actively involved in
its development.
For some organisations it may also be relevant to seek
the acceptance or approval of external stakeholders
before deciding to carry out self-assessment. This may
be the case with politicians or senior management of
higher level organisations who are traditionally closely
involved in management decision making. Key external
stakeholders may have a role to play, particularly in
data collection and processing information, and also
potentially benefit from changes regarding some of the
areas of improvement that may be identified.
Initial planning of the self-assessment
Once a decision has been made to carry out self-as-
sessment the planning process can start. One of the
first elements in this – that may have been included
in the management decision – is the definition of the
scope and the approach of self-assessment.
A frequently asked question is whether the self-assess-
ment has to cover the whole organisation or if sepa-
rate parts such as units or departments can undertake
self-assessment. The answer is that separate parts can
perform self-assessment but in order to assess all cri-
teria and sub criteria in a meaningful way, they should
have enough autonomy to be considered as a mainly
autonomous organisation with a proper mission and
significant responsibility for Human Resources and fi-
nancial processes. In such cases the relevant supplier/
customer relations as well as stakeholder relations be-
tween the selected unit and the remaining part of the
organisation should be assessed.
It is recommended to include in the management deci-
sion the choice of the scoring panel to be used.
Two ways of scoring are offered. An organisation
should choose depending on the time available to
invest in scoring and on its level of experience and
maturity.
A very important action by top management to un-
dertake in this phase is the appointment of a project
leader for the self-assessment process. Tasks that are
normally performed by the project leader include:
1. Detailed planning of the project, including the
communication process;
2. Communication and consultation with all stake-
holders regarding the project;
3. Organising training of the self-assessment group;
4. Gathering of supporting documents and evidence;
5. Active participation in the self-assessment group;
6. Facilitation of the consensus process;
7. Editing of the self-assessment report;
8. Supporting the management in prioritising
actions and outlining of the action plan.
The demands regarding the competences of the project
leader are high. The person has to have both a high
level of knowledge regarding his or her own organisa-
tion, knowledge of the CAF model as well as knowl-
edge about how to facilitate the process of self-assess-
ment. Appointing the right project leader who has this
knowledge and the confidence of senior management
and people within the organisation is one of the key
management decisions that can affect the quality and
outcome of the self-assessment. Appropriate project
management training is available at national and Eu-
ropean level.
For some organisations the language and the exam-
ples used in the CAF model are unfamiliar and too far
away from their daily practise to be used directly. If this
is not resolved early in the familiarisation of the model,
it can later be an obstacle in the process of self-as-
sessment. What can be done in such cases, in addi-
tion to the training efforts that are later described, is
to “adapt” the model to the language of the organisa-
tion. Prior to embarking on this action it is a good idea
to check if this has already been done by an organi-
sation similar to your own. This can be done through
the organisation responsible for disseminating CAF in
your country or with the CAF Resource Centre at EIPA.
Step 2 COMMUNICATE THE
SELF-ASSESSMENT PROJECT
A very important planning activity once the project ap-
proach has been defined is the outlining of a com-
munication plan. This plan includes communication
efforts targeted at all stakeholders in the project with a
special emphasis on middle managers and people of
the organisation.
Communication is a core field in all change manage-
ment projects, but especially when an organisation is
performing self-assessment. If communication regard-
ing the purpose and the activities of the self-assessment
is not clear and appropriate, it is likely that the self-as-
sessment effort will be seen as “just another project”
or “some management exercise”. The risk here is that
these assumptions become self-fulfilling prophecies as
there may be a reluctance from middle managers and
other people to be fully committed or involved.
Survey 2005 – The importance of communi-
cation to create ownership by the employ-
ees is generally underestimated
An important conclusion of the latest CAF
users’ survey is that the users of CAF find that they
have generally not prioritised sufficiently the commu-
nication efforts regarding employees during the proc-
ess. The lessons learned show that one of the major
potential benefits of CAF is to increase the level of
awareness and communication across the organisa-
tion. But this can only be realised if management and
the people responsible for the CAF self-assessment are
active at a very early stage in communicating and in-
volving people and middle managers in the organisa-
tion about the purpose and the potential benefits of
self-assessment.
An important result of early communication is to
stimulate the interest of some of the employees and
managers to be directly involved in a self-assessment
group. Involvement should ideally be pursued through
personal motivation. Motivation should be the basic
element that links people to the whole process of self-
assessment. People should have a completely clear
view of the purpose of the CAF self-assessment proc-
ess: the improvement in the overall performance of
the organisation. The communication policy on the
CAF self-assessment process should focus on win-win
outcomes for all stakeholders, people and citizens/cli-
ents.
So clear and coherent communication to all stakehold-
ers during the relevant phases of the project is key to
securing a successful process and follow up action.
The project leader along with the top management of
the organisation should reinforce that policy by focus-
ing on:
1. how self-assessment can make a difference;
2. why it has been given priority;
3. how it is connected to the strategic planning of the
organisation;
31
4. how it is connected (for example as the first step
to) to a general effort for improvement in the or-
ganisation’s performance, for instance through
the implementation of an innovative operational
reform programme.
The communication plan should be differentiated and
consider the following elements: focus group, mes-
sage, medium, sender, frequency and tools.
Phase 2 – Self-Assessment Process
Step 3 COMPOSE ONE OR MORE
SELF-ASSESSMENT GROUPS
The self-assessment group should be as representa-
tive of the organisation as possible. Usually people
from different sectors, functions, experience and levels
within the organisation are included. The objective is
to establish an as effective group as possible, while at
the same time a group, which is able to provide the
most accurate and detailed internal perspective of the
organisation.
The experience of the CAF users shows that groups are
composed with between 5-20 participants. However,
in order to secure an effective and relatively informal
working style, groups around 10 participants are gen-
erally preferable.
If the organisation is very large and complex it could
be relevant to compose more than one self-assessment
group. In this case it is critical that the project design
takes into consideration how and when the appropri-
ate coordination of the groups will be taking place.
Participants should be selected on the basis of their
knowledge of the organisation and their personal skills
(e.g. analytical and communicative skills) rather than
professional skills alone. They can be selected on a
voluntary basis but the project leader and the man-
agement remain responsible for the quality, the diver-
sity and credibility of the self-assessment group.
The project leader of the group may also be the chair,
this can help with project continuity but care should be
taken in order to avoid conflicting interests. What is
important is that the chair of the group is trusted by all
the members of the group to be able to lead discus-
sions in a fair and effective way that will enable eve-
rybody to contribute to the process. The chair can be
appointed by the group itself. An effective secretariat
to help the chair and organise meetings is essential as
well as good meeting facilities and ICT support.
A frequently asked question is whether senior manag-
ers should be included in the self-assessment group. The
answer to this will depend on the culture and tradition of
the organisation. If management is involved, they can
provide additional information and it will increase the
likelihood that management has ownership to the later
32
implementation of the improvement actions identified. It
also increases diversity/representation. However, if the
culture is not likely to support this, then the quality of the
self-assessment can be jeopardised if one or more of the
group members feels inhibited and unable to contribute
or speak freely.
Step 4 ORGANISE TRAINING
Information and training of management
It could be of value to involve top, middle manage-
ment and other stakeholders in self-assessment train-
ing, on a voluntary basis, to widen knowledge and
understanding of the concepts of TQM in general and
self-assessment with CAF in particular.
Information and training of the self-assess-
ment group
The CAF model should be introduced and the purpos-
es and nature of the self-assessment process explained
to the group. If the project leader has been trained
prior to this phase it is a very good idea that this per-
son plays a major role in the training. In addition to
theoretical explanations, training should also include
practical exercises to open the minds of participants
to the principles of total quality and also to experience
consensus building as these concepts and behaviours
may be unfamiliar to most members.
The CAF Resource Centre at EIPA arranges “train the
trainer” sessions every year, and similar activities take
place in a number of European countries.
A list provided by the project leader with all relevant
documents and information needed to assess the or-
ganisation in an effective way should be available for
the group. One sub criterion from the enablers crite-
ria and one from the results criteria could be assessed
in common. This will give the group a better under-
standing of how the CAF self-assessment is operating.
A consensus has to be reached on how to evaluate
evidence of strengths and areas for improvement and
how to assign scores.
Another relevant session that will afterwards – during
the consensus phase – save time is to get a common pic-
ture of the key stakeholders of the organisation, those
which have a major interest in its activities: customers/
citizens, politicians, suppliers, partners, managers and
employees. The most important services and products
delivered to, or received from, these stakeholders and
the key processes to assure this should also be clearly
identified.
Step 5 UNDERTAKE THE SELF-ASSESSMENT
Undertake individual assessment
Each member of the self-assessment group, using the
relevant documents and information provided by the
project leader, is asked to give an accurate assess-
ment, under each sub criterion, of the organisation.
This is based on their own knowledge and experience
of working in the organisation. They write down key
words of evidence about strengths and areas for im-
provement. It is recommended to formulate the areas
for improvement as precisely as possible in order to
make it easier to identify proposals for action at a later
stage. They should then overview their findings and
score each sub criterion, according to the scoring pan-
el that has been chosen.
The chair must be available to handle questions from
the members of the self–assessment group during the
individual assessment. He/she can also coordinate the
findings of the members in preparation for the consen-
sus meeting.
Undertake consensus in group
As soon as possible after the individual assessments,
the group should meet and agree on the strengths,
areas for improvement and the scores on each sub
criterion. A process of dialogue and discussion is nec-
essary, indeed essential as part of the learning experi-
ence, to reach consensus as it is very important to un-
derstand why differences regarding the strengths and
areas of improvement and scoring exist.
The sequence for assessment of the nine criteria can
be established by the self-assessment group. It is not
necessary for this to be in strict numerical order.
The consensus finding
How can the consensus be achieved?
In the process of arriving at consensus, a four-step
method may be used:
1. Presenting all evidence concerning the identified
strengths and areas for improvement per sub cri-
terion – identified by each individual;
2. Reaching consensus on strengths and areas for
improvement. This is usually reached after the
consideration of any additional evidence or infor-
mation;
3. Presenting the range of individual scores under
each sub criterion;
4. Reach consensus regarding the final scoring.
A good preparation of the meeting by the chairperson
(e.g. collection of important information, coordination
of the individual assessments) can lead to smooth run-
ning of meetings and important time saving.
Survey 2005 – The added value of
discussions
Overall, the practice of coming to conclusions was the
same as observed in 2003: the majority reached con-
sensus after discussions. The discussion itself is very
often seen as the real added value of a self-assess-
ment: when a consensus is reached, the end result is
more then the pure sum of the individual opinions. It
reflects the common vision of a representative group
and in this way it corrects and goes beyond the sub-
jective individual opinions. Clarifying evidences and
expressing the background to different views on
strengths and weaknesses are often considered to be
more important than the scores.
The chair is responsible and has a key role in
conducting this process and arriving at a group con-
sensus. In all cases, the discussion should be based
on clear evidence of actions undertaken and results
achieved. In the CAF, a list of relevant examples is
included, to help provide assistance in identifying ap-
propriate evidence. This list is not exhaustive nor is it
necessary to meet all the possible examples, only those
relevant to the organisation. However, the group is en-
couraged to find any additional examples which they
feel are relevant to the organisation.
The role of the examples is to explain the content of the
sub criteria in more detail in order to:
1. explore how the administration answers the
requirements expressed in the sub criterion;
2. provide assistance in identifying evidence; and
3. be an indication of good practices in that particu-
lar area.
How to score
The CAF provides two ways of scoring: the classical
approach and the fine-tuned approach. Both scoring
systems are explained in detail in this brochure. It is
recommended to use the classical scoring system if an
organisation is not familiar with self-assessment and/
or inexperienced in Total Quality Management tech-
niques.
Duration of the self-assessment exercise
Comparing the reality and the preference, based on
the survey 2005, 2 to 3 days seems to be rather short
to do a reliable self-assessment whilst 10 days or more
is too long. It is difficult to suggest an ideal time sched-
ule for a CAF self-assessment as there are too many
variables which include the objectives of management,
the time, resources and expertise available for invest-
ment, the availability of data, stakeholder time and
information and political pressures. However to the
majority of organisations a duration of up to 5 days
is the norm. This includes individual assessment and
consensus meeting(s).
The large majority of organisations completed the
whole CAF application process in 3 months, including
33
the preparation, the self-assessment, the drawing of
conclusions and the formulation of an action plan.
Three months seems to be an ideal lapse of time to
stay focused. Taking more time raises the risk of re-
duced motivation and interest of all parties involved.
Furthermore, the situation might have changed be-
tween the start and the end of the self-assessment
process. In such a case, the assessment and scoring
may no longer be accurate. This is highly likely as im-
proving an organisation using CAF is a dynamic, con-
tinuous improvement process and therefore updating
data and information is part of that process.
Step 6 DRAW UP A REPORT DESCRIBING THE
RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT
A typical self-assessment report should follow the
structure of CAF (as showed in scheme A) and consist
at least of the following elements:
1. The strengths and areas for improvement for each
sub criterion supported by relevant evidence;
2. A score which is justified on the basis of the scor-
ing panel;
3. Ideas for improvement actions.
In order to use the report as basis for improvement ac-
tions it is crucial that Senior Management officially ac-
cepts the self-assessment report, ideally endorses and
approves it. If the communication process has worked
well this should not be a problem. Senior Management
should reconfirm its commitment to implementing the
improvement actions. It is also essential at this stage to
communicate the main results to people in the organi-
sation and other participating stakeholders.
Phase 3 – Improvement plan/prioritisation
Step 7 DRAFT AN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Survey 2005: Lack of measurements
Many organisations encountered obstacles during
their first CAF application. The lack of measurement
has obviously been the major problem in many public
organisations doing self-assessment for the first time,
very often resulting in the installation of measurement
systems as the first improvement action.
The self-assessment procedure should go beyond the
self-assessment report in order to fulfil the purpose of
CAF implementation. It should lead directly to a report
of actions to improve the performance of the organisa-
tion. This action plan is one of the main goals of the
CAF self-assessment effort and also the means to feed
vital information to the strategic programming system
of the organisation. It must realise an integrated plan
for the organisation to upgrade its functioning as a
whole. Specifically the core logic of the report is that:
34
1. It is an integrated systematic action planning for
the whole span of the organisation’s functionality
and operability.
2. It comes as a result of the self-assessment report, so
it is based upon evidence and data provided by the
organisation itself and – absolutely vital – from the
aspect of the people of the organisation.
3. It builds on the strengths, addresses the weak-
nesses of the organisation and responds to each
of them with appropriate improvement actions.
Prioritise areas of improvement
In preparing an improvement plan, the management
might wish to consider the use of a structured ap-
proach, including the questions:
– Where do we want to be in 2 years in line with the
overall vision and strategy of the organisation?
– What actions need to be taken to reach these
goals (strategy/task definition)?
The process for building an improvement plan could
be structured as follows:
The management – in consultation with relevant stake-
holders
1. collects ideas for improvement from the self-as-
sessment report and collates these ideas for im-
provement under common themes;
2. analyses the areas for improvement and suggest-
ed ideas, then formulates improvement actions
taking into account the strategic objectives of the
organisation;
3. prioritises the improvement actions using agreed
criteria to calculate their impact (low, medium,
high) in the improvement areas, such as:
– strategic weight of the action (a combination of im-
pact on the stakeholders, impact on the results of
the organisation, internal/external visibility)
– ease of implementation of the actions (looking
into the level of difficulty, the resources needed
and the speed of realisation);
4. assigns ownership to each action as well as a time
schedule and milestones & identifies the necessary
resources (cf. scheme B).
It can be useful to link the ongoing improvement ac-
tions to the CAF structure in order to keep a clear over-
view.
One way to prioritise is to combine:
1. the level of scoring per criterion or sub criterion
which gives an idea of the organisations’ perform-
ance in all fields,
2. the key strategic objectives.
Recommendations
While a CAF self-assessment is recognised to be the
start of a longer-term improvement strategy, the as-
sessment will inevitably highlight a few areas that can
be addressed relatively quickly and easily. Acting on
them will help with the credibility of the improvement
programme and represent an immediate return on
time and training investment, it also provides an in-
centive to continue – success breeds success.
It is a good idea to involve the people who carried out
the self-assessment in the improvement activities. This
is usually personally rewarding for them and boosts
their confidence and morale. They may also become
ambassadors for further improvement initiatives.
Survey 2005 – The members of the Self as-
sessment groups (SAG)
The members of the SAG have invested a lot of their
energy in the exercise, very often besides their usual
daily work. Very often they start their work in the SAG
with some suspicion about the usefulness of the task,
the engagement of the management, the dangers of
being open and honest etc. After a while, when they
see that things are taken seriously, motivation and
even some enthusiasm raise and at the end they take
the full ownership of the results. They have the po-
tential to become the most motivated candidates for
improvement teams and should be treated in accord-
ance with this role.
At best, the action plan resulting from the self-assess-
ment should be integrated into the strategic planning
process of the organisation and become part of the
overall management of the organisation.
Step 8 COMMUNICATE THE IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
As mentioned previously, communication is one of the
critical success factors of a self-assessment and the
improvements actions that follow. Communication ac-
tions must provide the appropriate information with
the appropriate media to the appropriate target group
at the appropriate moment: not only before or dur-
ing but also after the self-assessment. An organisation
should decide individually whether or not it makes the
self-assessment report available, but it is good prac-
tice to inform the whole staff about the results of the
self-assessment i.e. the main findings of the self-as-
sessment, the areas in which action is most needed,
and the improvement actions planned. If not, the pos-
sibility to create an appropriate platform for change
and improvement runs the risk of being lost. In any
communication about results it is always good practice
to highlight the things that the organisation does well
and how it intends to further improve – there are many
examples of organisations taking for granted their
strengths sometimes forgetting, or even not realising,
how important it is to celebrate success.
35
Step 9 IMPLEMENT THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
As described in step 7, the formulation of the priori-
tised improvement action plan is very important. Many
of the examples in the CAF model can be considered
as a first move towards improvement actions. Existing
good practices and management tools can be linked
to the different criteria of the model. Examples of them
are shown below.
manage improvements actions. To fully benefit from
the improvements actions they should be integrated in
the ordinary processes of the organisations.
On the basis of the CAF self-assessment more and
more countries are organising recognition schemes.
The CAF self-assessment could also lead to a recogni-
tion from EFQM Levels of Excellence (www.efqm.org).

)NVESTORS )3/ 5SER )MPROVEMENTACTIONS

"3# IN0EOPLE  -ANUAL
0EOPLE #ITIZEN
3URVEYS #USTOMER3URVEYS !UDITS

4HE#!&-ODEL
%.!",%23 2%35,43

0EOPLE 0EOPLE2ESULTS

#ITIZEN#USTOMER +EY
,EADERSHIP 3TRATEGY 0ROCESSES 0ERFORMANCE
/RIENTED
0LANNING 2ESULTS
2ESULTS

0ARTNERSHIP 3OCIETY
2ESOURCES 2ESULTS

6!4)/.!.$,%!2.).'
6!

0ERFORMANCE -ISSION #ITIZENOR
-ANAGEMENT $EVELOPMENT 3ERVICE#HARTERS
The implementation of these improvement actions
should be based on a suitable and consistent ap-
proach, a process of monitoring and assessment;
deadlines and results expected should be clarified; a
responsible person for each action (an “owner”) should
be assigned, and alternative scenarios for complex ac-
tions should be considered.
Any quality management process should be based
on regular monitoring of implementation and evalu-
ation of the outputs and outcomes. With monitoring it
is possible to adjust what was planned in the course of
implementation and post evaluation (results and out-
comes), to check what was achieved and its overall
impact. To improve this it is necessary to establish ways
to measure the performance of the actions (perform-
ance indicators, success criterion, etc). Organisations
could use the Plan-Do-Check and Act cycle (PDCA) to
36
"UDGETING )3/
!CCOUNTING 
Implementation of CAF action plans facilitates
the permanent use of management tools such as
Balanced Scorecard, customer and employee’s
satisfaction surveys, performance management sys-
tems, etc.
Survey 2005 – CAF as an introduction
to TQM
The study shows that the use of quality or
management instruments was limited before us-
ers applied CAF. Most used are customer and
employees satisfaction surveys, external and
internal audits, ISO 9000/2000 standard(s) with and
without certification, project management and BSC.
The ambition to use more of these tools in the future
is very high.
Step 10 PLAN NEXT SELF-ASSESSMENT

Using the PDCA cycle to manage the Action Plan im-

plies a new assessment with CAF.

Monitor progress and repeat the assessment

Once the improvement action plan is formulated
and the implementation of changes has begun it
is important to make sure that the changes have
a positive effect and are not having an adverse
effect on things that the organisation was previously
doing well. Some organisations have built regular self-
assessment into their business planning process – their
assessments are timed to inform the annual setting of
objectives and bids for financial resources.

The evaluation panels of the CAF are simple but pow-

erful tools to use when assessing the on-going progress
of the improvement action plan.

Survey 2005 – CAF is generally repeated

every 2nd year
The organisations consent that in order to be
effective, the CAF has to be applied several times.
There is a preference towards the use of CAF every 2
years (44%). The investments in the exercise and the
time needed to generate results in the improvement
actions support this view.

37
Ten steps to improve organisations with CAF

Phase 1 – The start of the CAF journey
Step 1 Decide how to organise and plan the
self-assessment (SA)
– Assure a clear management decision in con-
sultation with the organisation
– Define the scope and the approach of the SA
– Choose the scoring panel
– Appoint a project leader
Step 2 Communicate the self-assessment
project
– Define and implement a communication plan
– Stimulate involvement of the staff in the SA
– Communicate during the different phases to
all the stakeholders
Phase 2 – Self-Assessment Process
Step 3 Compose one or more self-assess-
ment groups
– Decide on the number of self assessment
groups
– Create a self assessment group that is relevant
for the whole organisation in all its aspects,
respecting a set of criteria
– Choose the chair of the group(s)
– Decide if the manager should be part of the
self-assessment group
Step 4 Organise training
– Organise information and training of the
management team
– Organise information and training of the self-
assessment group
– The project leader provides a list with all rel-
evant documents
– Define the key stakeholders, the products
and services that are delivered and the key
processes
Step 5 Undertake the self-assessment
– Undertake individual assessment
– Undertake consensus in group
– Score
Step 6 Draw up a report describing the re-
sults of self-assessment
Phase 3 – Improvement plan/ prioritisation
Step 7 Draft an improvement plan, based on
the accepted self-assessment report
– Prioritise improvement actions
– Differentiate the actions within realistic time
scales
– Integrate the action plan in the normal
strategic planning process
Step 8 Communicate the improvement plan
Step 9 Implement the improvement Plan
– Define a consistent approach of monitor-
ing and assessing the improvement actions,
based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle
– Appoint a responsible person for each action
– Implement the appropriate management tools
on a permanent basis
Step 10 Plan next self-assessment
– Evaluate the improvement actions by a new
self-assessment

38
Scheme A – Pro forma self-assessment sheet for classical scoring

#RITERION ,EADERSHIP
%VALUATIONOF#RITERION
#ONSIDEREVIDENCEOFWHATTHEORGANISATIONSLEADERSHIPISDOINGTO

3UBCRITERIA
0ROVIDEDIRECTIONFORTHEORGANISATIONBYDEVELOPINGITSMISSIONVISIONANDVALUES
$EVELOPANDIMPLEMENTASYSTEMFORTHEMANAGEMENTOFORGANISATIONPERFORMANCEANDCHANGE
-OTIVATEANDSUPPORTTHEPEOPLEINTHEORGANISATIONANDACTASAROLEMODEL
-ANAGERELATIONSWITHPOLITICIANSANDOTHERSTAKEHOLDERSINORDERTOENSURESHAREDRESPONSIBILITY

3UB 3TRENGTHS !REASFORIMPROVEMENT 3CORE*USTIFICATION /PTIONAL !CTIONITEMS

CRITERIA 









4OTAL

!VERAGE
ON

Scheme B – Action sheet

Action programme 1: (e.g.Leadership)

!CTION description of the action

3PONSOR the highest authority that is responsible for the item and wants and supports a specific
action; could be considered as the end user

!CTIONLEADER the person or service who is in charge of the action

!CTIONTEAM the individuals identified to work in implementing the action; can be people from inside
and/or outside the organisation

#ONTACT

Scope

Stakeholders

Strengths as defined in self-assessment

Context and areas for improvement

Alternatives to explore

Constraints

Human resources needed (in man/days)

Budget

Deliverable

Starting date

Estimated Deadline

39
Bench learning
1. Definition
The main purpose of establishing bench learning and/
or benchmarking activities is to find better ways of do-
ing things with a view to improving overall organisa-
tion performance. This is normally based on better re-
sults achieved in other organisations. At its simplest,
benchmarking is a process by which an organisation
finds relevant organisations with which it can compare,
or benchmark, its own organisation and performance.
The technique can be a powerful and effective tool for
organisational development, as it exploits sound ba-
sic principles such as “not re-inventing the wheel” and
“learning from others”. The CAF, and other relevant
organisational analysis tools, can be used to
support the purpose.
Unlike classical benchmarking, bench learning does
not necessarily include searching for comparable or-
ganisations and using clear indicators for direct com-
parisons. It emphasises more the process of learning
from others rather than making comparisons. The
goal of bench learning is to learn from the strengths
of other organisations, to learn from them the things
they do well, to search for inspiration in our own work
and to learn from and to avoid the mistakes that others
have made. It is an active, continuous process and not
just a comparison of benchmarks: facts and measure-
ments.
Good practices are usually inextricably linked with
bench learning. The bench learning partners chosen
should be organisations employing good practices
which- when adapted and implemented in your own
organisation – lead to improved performance. It is
worth noting that when searching for bench learning
partners the search should not be restricted to simi-
lar organisations, indeed innovation is often inspired
through learning from dissimilar cross sector partners.
By implementing in your own organisation what you
have learnt through the bench learning process you
are inevitably creating your own good practices.
2. CAF and Bench learning
Self-assessment is a preliminary step towards the proc-
ess of bench learning and the subsequent changes to
be implemented as it allows for a diagnosis of the or-
ganisation – the knowledge and understanding of its
strengths and areas for improvement. Prior to intro-
ducing bench learning, it is important to have a clear
picture of the current performance of the organisation
in order to decide on the areas/criteria that will be
used as the basis for the improvement process.
Bench learning using CAF thus implies that an organi-
sation has assessed its performance in relation to at
least four key areas:
1. The people in the organisation
2. The customers
3. The environment in which the organisation
40
operates
4. The overall performance of the organisation
An assessment of results in these key areas will give
us a comprehensive view of what an organisation is
achieving and will provide us with performance data
and appropriate metrics.
However, in order to offer the full range of benefits
that can be obtained by a bench learning activity, it is
also necessary to consider the question of governance
and how the organisation is managed; this is reflected
in the enablers criteria of the CAF model, which de-
scribe how the organisation approaches issues such as
the setting of objectives, the development of human
resources, the function of leadership, resources man-
agement and processes, etc.
Every function, process and task of the organisation
can be the subject of bench learning. The advantage
of linking bench learning initiatives to CAF is that the
CAF framework with the 9 criteria and 28 subcriteria
can be used to identify the organisations problem ar-
eas and look for appropriate bench learning partners
that have performed well in the given areas.
A self-assessment with CAF should lead to the drawing
up of an action plan addressing the areas of improve-
ment. Bench learning with other organisations is just
one way to realise these improvement actions. As in
the case for self-assessment, bench learning has an
inherent idea of continuity and performance improve-
ment over the long term.
Given the increased use of CAF in Europe, it has be-
come easier to find bench learning partners through
CAF. The EIPA CAF resource centre, with the help of the
national correspondents and its network of organisa-
tions, keeps track of CAF users in Europe and invites
them to introduce their good practices in the EIPA da-
tabase.
When registering as a CAF user at the website of the
European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) –
www.eipa.eu – an organisation is able to register its
organisation details, its CAF self-assessment scores
(optional & confidential) and information on its good
practices. By offering key information the database
can help public sector organisations identify suitable
bench learning partners i.e. to allow a search for CAF
users in a particular country, sector of activity, or good
practice area.
3. Bench learning cycle and project
Schematically, bench learning can be presented as a
5-step cycle:
1. Plan
2. Collect, measure and compare
3. Analyse
4. Adapt
5. Evaluate and repeat
 Bench learning Cycle

%6!,5!4% 0,!.
progress and REPEAT (what, how, when,
with whom)

"%.#(,%!2.).'#9#,%

)-0,%-%.4
the good practices in your
organisation
!.!,93%
areas for learning
1. Plan
In the first step of bench learning projects – the plan-
ning – suitable partners are searched, identified and
approached. Bench learning projects can be set up
among two or more partners. It is very important to ap-
point a project manager in each organisation. Among
the project participants a coordinator can be chosen.
The partners must agree upon the areas and/or results
that will be addressed taking into account the roles
and contributions of the various partners. They should
always have in mind balancing the contributions made
and benefits received by the partners, creating a win-
win situation for all participants. The partners should
also agree a code of conduct which may include dead-
line conformities and rules on confidentiality, manage-
ment and security of information.
2. Collect, measure and compare
During the second stage, interesting procedures and
suggestions from the partner organisations to address
the identified problems are collected as well as results
achieved in the relevant areas. This data gathering
can be done by well prepared questionnaires, through
participant meetings and/or by site visits. All informa-
tion collected – information on successes and failures
– should be compared and/or measured and differ-
ences and preconditions for success identified.
#/,,%#4-%!352%
!.$#/-0!2%
interesting procedures,
strengths and results
3. Analyse
The third step is the analysis. Participant organisations
are asked to define the causes of the problems that
occurred in each area. They are also asked, wherever
possible, to determine the root causes of problems and
to understand how the reasons can be key to mak-
ing the successful first steps in resolution of problems.
Once the problem causes are known, it is necessary to
choose or adapt good practices or identify other po-
tentially successful solutions. It is also recommended
that project participants determine why some proce-
dures, results or methods are more suitable and suc-
cessful than others and document these findings.
4. Adapt
The fourth stage is the implementation. It includes the
selection of good ideas, suggestions, procedures and
solutions and their introduction into the daily practice
of the organisation. The full agreement, involvement
and participation of employees at this stage is crucial
to successful implementation. Employees should also
of course be aware of the progress of the project at all
stages as part of the organisation’s normal communi-
cation channels.
A final report should be drafted including a list of the
good practice suggestions, their implementation and
expected results/outcomes.
41
5. Evaluate and repeat
The final stage is an evaluation of the results of the
project. An assessment is made of the results of the
bench learning project and decisions are taken on the
next steps. These steps may include improving exist-
ing processes, including new suggestions/ideas – the
main point here is that continuous improvement is a
dynamic process and affects, and therefore necessi-
tates the involvement of, all stakeholders. To measure
the improvements achieved on an ongoing basis it is
important to monitor progress, it is therefore recom-
mended that organisations repeat a full self-assess-
ment based on the CAF Model.

4. Potential Pitfalls
– To limit yourself to your own sector to look for
bench learning partners. Some processes such
as the measurement of customer or people sat-
isfaction – although from different sectors – are
common and can be compared effectively with
different kinds of organisations. It’s about “get-
ting out of the box”;
– To focus only on the comparison measures of
the performance, without taking into account
the processes and the activities that lead to good
practices;
– To expect that bench learning is going to be fast
or easy;
– Spending too much time and resource in one
specific phase of the process;
– Have the expectation that all the components
of the organisation can be compared with other
organisations;
– Asking for information and data without be-
ing prepared to share your own data and in-
formation with others, and inversely, to expect
that other organisations will openly share infor-
mation that is valuable to them in commercial
terms, although in our experience most organi-
sations are happy to share most information if
the right partnership is established at the out-
set; respecting others and working in the true
spirit of partnership is fundamental to successful
bench learning projects.;
– The longer the bench learning process takes,
the more difficult it is to maintain enthusiasm
and the commitment of people responsible for
promoting action and ultimately its implementa-
tion.

42
Glossary
Accountability
Accountability is the obligation to answer for responsi-
bilities that have been conferred and accepted and to
report on the utilisation and management of resources
entrusted.The people who accept accountability are
responsible for answering questions and reporting on
resources and operations that are under their control
to those people who have to hold accountability. So
both parts have their duties.
Appraisal/Performance appraisal
“Performance appraisal” needs to be understood
in the management context. Usually, the manage-
ment system of an organisation will include the as-
sessment of individual employees’ job performance.
This practice helps to monitor the departmental and
overall organisational performance by aggregating
the individual performance at different management
levels within the organisation. The personal appraisal
interview between the individual employee and his/her
line manager is the most common way for appraisal
to be carried out. During the interview, in addition to
an appraisal of performance, other aspects of the in-
dividual’s employment can be assessed including level
of job knowledge and competences from which train-
ing needs can be identified. In a TQM approach, the
PDCA, based on continuous improvement, is used at
the individual level: PLAN the job for the coming year,
realise the job (DO), CHECK your realisation during
the performance appraisal interview and adapt (ACT)
if necessary for the next year: the objectives, the means
and the competences.
There are several ways to increase the objectivity of
performance appraisal:
- The upward appraisal where managers are evalu-
ated by employees directly reporting to them.
- The 360 degrees appraisal where managers are
evaluated from different points of views: general
managers, peers, collaborators and customers.
'%.%2!,-!.!'%23 0%%23
-!.!'%2).$)6)$5!,3
0%%23 #/,,!"/2!4/23
Action Plan
A document which is a plan of tasks, allocation of
responsibilities, goals for the implementation of the
project (e.g. targets/deadlines) and resources needed
(e.g. hours, money).
Audit
Auditing is an independent appraisal function to ex-
amine and evaluate the activities of an organisation
and its results. The most common audits are: financial
audit, operational audit, ICT audit, compliance audit
and management audit. Three levels of auditing con-
trol activity can be distinguished:
– Internal control carried out by management.
– Internal auditing by an independent unit of the organi-
sation. In addition to compliance/regulation activities it
may also have a role in controlling the effectiveness of
the organisations internal management.
– External auditing done by an independent body
from outside the organisation.
Balanced Scorecard
The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is a whole of quanti-
tative measurements evaluating to what extent the
organisation succeeds in realising its mission and
strategic objectives. These measurements are built
up around four viewpoints: innovation and learning
(people management), internal processes, customers,
and financial management. The indicators of each ap-
proach are linked to each other through a cause-effect
relationship. These relationships are based on hypoth-
esises that have to be monitored permanently.
The BSC is also very useful as a communication tool
for management to inform the people in the organisa-
tion and the stakeholders to what extent the strategic
plan has been realised.
The Balanced Scorecard is increasingly used in the
public sector in Europe.
It should be noted that the Balanced Scorecard can be
used within CAF assessment.
Benchmark
A measured achievement at a high level (sometimes
referred to as “best-in-class” see Benchmarking be-
low); a reference or measurement standard for com-
parison; or a performance level which is recognised as
the standard of excellence for a specific process.
Benchmarking
There are numerous definitions of benchmarking but
the key words associated with benchmarking are ‘to
make comparison with others ‘
“Benchmarking is simply about making comparisons
with other organisations and then learning the lessons
that those comparisons reveal“ (Source: European
Benchmarking Code of Conduct).
43
In practice, benchmarking usually encompasses:
– regularly comparing aspects of performance
(functions or processes) with those organisations
which are considered to be good practitioners;
sometimes reference is made to best in class but
as no one can ever be certain as to who is best the
term good is preferred;
– identifying gaps in performance;
– seeking fresh approaches to bring about improve-
ments in performance;
– following through with implementing improve-
ments; and
– following up by monitoring progress and review-
ing the benefits.
Benchmarking in European Public Administrations
usually focuses on the learning aspects and is now
more commonly referred to as ‘Bench learning’ as
learning how to improve through sharing knowl-
edge, information, and sometimes resources, is
recognised to be an effective way of introducing
organisational change. It reduces risks, is efficient and
saves time.
– Strategic benchmarking
Strategic Benchmarking is used where organisa-
tions seek to improve their overall performance by
examining the long-term strategies and general
approaches that have enabled high-performers
to succeed. It involves comparisons of high-level
aspects, such as core competencies; the devel-
opment of new products and services; a change
in the balance of activities or an improvement in
capabilities for dealing with changes in the back-
ground environment.
Best/Good practice
Superior performances, methods or approaches that
lead to exceptional achievement. Best practice is a rel-
ative term and sometimes indicates innovative or inter-
esting business practices, which have been identified
through benchmarking. As with Benchmark it is prefer-
able to talk about “good practice” since one cannot be
sure that there is not a better one.
Bottom-up
Direction of the flow of, for example, information or
decisions from lower levels of an organisation to high-
er levels. The opposite is top-down.
Brainstorming
Used as a team working tool to generate ideas without
constraints in a short period of time. The most impor-
tant rule is to avoid any kind of criticism during the
ideas production phase.
Business Process Re-engineering (BPR)
We can always make further improvements to an ex-
isting process by means of minor adaptation (Kaizen
approach). In some case, this approach is no longer
suitable for accomplishing the required goals and it
may be necessary to redesign the whole process. We
44
call this approach BPR (Business process Re-engineer-
ing) or simply re-engineering. The idea of BPR is to
completely redesign the process, which creates oppor-
tunities for making a big leap forward or for accom-
plishing an important breakthrough. Once this new
process has been implemented, you may then return
to the process of searching for ways to make gradual
continual improvements to optimise the process.
Change management
Change management involves both generating the
needed changes in an organisation, usually preceded
by Modernisation and Reform agendas, and master-
ing the dynamics of change by organising, implement-
ing and supporting the change.
Code of conduct
May be expressed or implied, Rules and Guidelines,
for standards of behaviour for individuals, profession-
al groups, teams or organisations. Codes of conduct
may also apply to specific activities, such as auditing
or benchmarking and often refer to ethical standards.
Competence
Competences include the knowledge, skills and atti-
tudes of an individual used in practise in a job situ-
ation. When an individual is able to carry out a task
successfully he/she is regarded as having reached a
level of competence.
Conflict of interest
A “conflict of interest” in the public sector refers to a
conflict between the public duty and the private inter-
est of a public official, in which a public official’s pri-
vate-capacity interest could improperly influence the
performance of his/her official duties. Even if there is
no evidence of improper actions, a conflict of inter-
est can create an appearance of impropriety that can
undermine confidence in the ability of that person to
act properly.
Consensus
As the word implies this is about reaching agreement
and usually follows an initial self-assessment when in-
dividual assessors get together to compare and discuss
their individual assessments and individual scores. The
process usually ends with individual assessors reach-
ing agreement with a combined overall score and as-
sessment for the organisation.
Consensus or Self-assessment report
A report describing the results of self-assessment. This
report must include strengths and areas of improve-
ment for the organisation. It may also contain (option-
al) proposals for improvement in some key projects.
Continuous improvement process
The ongoing improvement of business processes in
terms of quality, economy or cycle time. The involve-
ment of all stakeholders of an organisation is normally
a pre-requisite in this process.
Corporate social responsibility
Corporate Social Responsibility is a commitment by
private and public sector organisations to contribute
to sustainable development working with employees,
their families, local communities, and society at large
to improve the quality of life. The aim is to bring ben-
efits both for organisations and wider society.
Cost effectiveness
The relationship between the effects that are implied
by the goals of the
organisation and
the costs – possi-
bly including the
full social cost – of
achieving them.
See also effective- /"*%#4)6%3 2%3/52#%3
ness.
Critical success
factor %#/./-9
The prior condi-
tions that must be
fulfilled in order
that an intended
strategic goal can
be achieved. It highlights those key activities or results
where satisfactory performance is essential in order for
an organisation to succeed.
Citizen/Customer
The term citizen/customer is used to emphasise the
dual relationship between the public administration
on the one hand, the users of public services and, on
the other hand, all the members of the public, who as
citizens and taxpayers have a stake in the services and
their outputs.
Diversity
Diversity relates to differences. It may refer to val-
ues, attitudes, culture, philosophy or religious
convictions, knowledge, skills, experience and lifestyle
between groups, or individuals within a group. It may
also be on the basis of gender, national or ethnic ori-
gin, disability or age.
In public administration a diverse organisation would
be considered to be one which reflects the society it
serves.
Economy
Economy and economising refer to prudent financial
management including reducing costs through more
efficient purchasing processes and saving money with-
out affecting the quality of outputs or objectives.
Effectiveness
Effectiveness is the relation between the set goal and
the impact, effect or outcome achieved.
Efficiency
Outputs in relation to inputs or costs. Efficiency and
Productivity may be regarded as one and the same.
Productivity may be measured in ways that capture ei-
ther the input of all factors of production (total factor
productivity) or a specific factor (labour productivity or
capital productivity).
Efficiency – Effectiveness – Economy
#/34%&&%#4)6%.%33
!#4)6)4)%3 /54054 /54#/-%)-0!#4
%&&)#)%.#9 %&&%#4)6%.%33
'/!,!#()%6%-%.4
eGovernment
The use of Information and Communication Technol-
ogy (ICT) in public administrations. Combined with or-
ganisational change and new skills it helps to improve
public services and democratic processes and also
strengthen support to public policies. eGovernment is
regarded as an enabler to realise a better and more
efficient administration. It can improve the develop-
ment and implementation of public policies and help
the public sector to cope with the potentially conflicting
demands of delivering more and better services with
fewer resources.
Empowerment
A process by which more authority is given to an in-
dividual or a group of people in the decision mak-
ing process, It may apply to citizens or employees by
involving the person/group and by granting them a
degree of autonomy in their actions/decisions.
Ethics
Ethics in Public Service may be defined as those com-
mon values and norms to which public servants sub-
scribe in carrying out their duties. The moral nature of
these values/norms, which may be stated or implicit,
refer to what is considered to be right, wrong, good or
bad behaviour. Whereas values serve as moral princi-
ples, norms may also state what is legally and morally
correct in a given situation.
Evaluation
Examining whether actions undertaken have given
desired effects and whether other actions could have
achieved a better result at a lower cost.
45
Evidence
Information that supports a statement or fact. Evidence
is considered to be essential in forming a firm conclu-
sion or a judgement.
Excellence
Outstanding practice in managing an organisation
and achieving results which are based on a set of Fun-
damental Concepts from Total Quality Management
as formulated by EFQM. These include: results orien-
tation, customer focus, leadership and constancy of
purpose management by processes and facts, involve-
ment of people, continuous improvement, and innova-
tion, mutually beneficial partnerships, corporate social
responsibility.
Follow-up
Subsequent to a self-assessment process and changes
to an organisation, a follow-up aims at measuring
goal achievement against stated objectives. The anal-
ysis may result in the launching of new initiatives and
adjusting strategy and planning in accordance with the
new circumstances.
Governance
The main elements of good public governance are de-
termined by the appointed framework of authority and
control. It will set out: the reporting obligation on the
goals achievement, transparency of actions and deci-
sion making process to the stakeholders, efficiency and
effectiveness, responsiveness to the needs of society,
anticipation of the problems and trends and respect of
the law and rules.
Human resources management
Managing, developing and utilising the knowledge,
skills and full potential of the employees of an organi-
sation in order to support policy and business planning
and the effective operation of its processes.
Indicators
Measures that are indicative i.e. showing the outcome
of an action.
– Performance Indicators
These are the numerous operational measures
used in Public Administration to help us
– Monitor
– Understand
– Predict and
– Improve
how we function and perform.
There are several terms used to measure organisation-
al performance; outcomes, measures, indicators, pa-
rameters. However measurement terminology is less
important and we should use terms with which we are
comfortable and familiar. If we follow Pareto’s principle
we realise that around 20% of what we do will deliver
80% of our outcomes. It is important therefore that we
at least measure the performance of those processes
that are essential to the delivery of our desired results.
46
– Key performance Indicators
Those measures that are most critical, and meas-
ure the performance of those key processes, es-
sentially contained in CAF criteria 4 and 5, which
are most likely, to influence the effectiveness and
efficiency of our key performance outcomes.
A good example of customer satisfaction may be meas-
urements in customer/citizen results of the performance
of the processes we have put in place for delivering cus-
tomer/citizen products and services.
Innovation
Innovation is the process of translating good ideas into
new services, processes, tools, systems and human
interaction. An organisation may be described as in-
novative when an existing task is performed in a way
new to the workplace, or when the organisation offers
customers a new service in a different way such as self-
service via the internet.
Input
Any kind of information, knowledge, material and oth-
er resources used for production.
ISO
ISO (International Organization for Standardization)
is a global network that identifies what International
Standards are required by business, government and
society, develops them in partnership with the sectors
that will put them to use, adopts them by transparent
procedures based on national input and delivers them
to be implemented worldwide. ISO Standards specify
the requirements for state-of-the-art products, serv-
ices, processes, materials and systems, and for good
conformity assessment, managerial and organisation-
al practice.
Key performance results
The results the organisation is achieving with regard to
its strategy and planning related to the needs and de-
mands of the different stakeholders (external results);
and the results of the organisation in relation to its
management and improvement (internal results).
Knowledge management
Knowledge Management is the explicit and systematic
management of vital knowledge – and its associated
processes of creation, organisation, diffusion, use and
exploitation.
It is important to note that knowledge encompasses
both tacit knowledge (that contained in people‘s
minds) and explicit knowledge (codified and expressed
as information in databases, documents etc.). A good
knowledge programme will address the processes of
knowledge development and transfer for both these
basic forms. The most vital knowledge in most or-
ganisations is often related to: Customer Knowledge,
Knowledge in Processes, Knowledge in Products and
Services, customised to users‘ needs, Knowledge in
People, Organisational Memory, drawing on lessons
from the past or elsewhere in the organisation, Knowl-
edge in Relationships, Knowledge Assets, measuring
and managing intellectual capital. A wide variety of
practices and processes are used in knowledge man-
agement. Some of the more common ones are: Creat-
ing and Discovering, Sharing and Learning (communi-
ties of practices), Organising and Managing.
Leaders
Traditionally we associate the term Leader with those
responsible for an organisation.
Leadership
The way in which leaders develop and facilitate the
achievement of the mission and vision of the organisa-
tion. It reflects how they develop values required for
long-term success and implement them via appropri-
ate actions and behaviours. It indicates how leaders
are personally involved in ensuring that the manage-
ment system is developed, implemented and reviewed
and that organisations permanently focus on change
and innovation.
Learning
The acquiring and understanding of knowledge and
information that may lead to improvement or change.
Examples of organisational learning activities include
benchmarking/ bench learning, internally and exter-
nally led assessments and/or audits, and best practice
studies. Examples of individual learning include train-
ing and developing skills.
– Learning environment
An environment within a working community
where learning takes place in the form of skill ac-
quisition, knowledge sharing, the exchange of ex-
perience, and dialogue on best practice.
– Learning organisation
An organisation where people continually expand
their capacity to achieve the results they desire,
where new and expansive patterns of thinking are
fostered, where collective aspiration is set free,
and where people are continually learning within
the context of the whole organisation.
Mission
A description of what an organisation should achieve
for its stakeholders. The mission of a public sector or-
ganisation results from a public policy and/or statutory
mandates.
It is the organisation’s “raison d’être”.
The final goals an organisation sets out to achieve in the
context of its mission are formulated in its vision.
Network
An informal organisation connecting people or or-
ganisations that may or may not have a formal line of
command. Members of the network often share values
and interests.
Objectives (goals/aims/targets)
A formulation of a desired situation describing the de-
sired results or effects as defined in the mission of the
organisation.
– Strategic objectives
Global objectives for the mid-and long-term indi-
cate the overall direction to which the organisation
wants to go. It describes the final results or effects
(outcomes) it wants to pursue.
– Operational objectives
They are a concrete formulation of the strategic
objectives, e.g. at unit level. An operational objec-
tive can be immediately transformed into a set of
activities and tasks.
Organisational culture
The total range of behaviours, ethics, and values which
are transmitted, practised and reinforced by members
of organisations; influenced by national, socio-politi-
cal and legal traditions and systems.
Organisational structure
The way an organisation is structured, i.e. the division
of work areas or functions, formal chains of communi-
cation between management and employees, and the
way tasks and responsibilities are divided throughout
the organisation.
Output
The immediate result of production, which may be ei-
ther goods or services. There is a distinction between
intermediate and final outputs, the former being prod-
ucts delivered from one department to another within
an organisation, the latter outputs delivered to some-
one outside the organisation.
Outcome
The overall effect that outputs have on external stake-
holders or wider society.
Example of Output and Outcome: Stronger conditions
for possessing firearms lead to fewer permits. The in-
termediate output is that there are fewer permits is-
sued. The final output is that there are less firearms
circulating in society. These outputs lead to the out-
come that a higher level of safety or feeling of security
is achieved.
Partnership
Collaboration with other parties on a commercial or a
non-commercial basis to reach a common goal, thus
creating added value for the organisation and its cus-
tomers/stakeholders.
47
PDCA cycle
A cycle of four stages one has to go through to realise
continuous improvement, as described by Deming:
– Plan (project phase)
– Do (execution phase)
– Check (control phase)
– Act (action-, adaptation- and correction phase)
It emphasises that improvement programs must start
with careful planning, must result in effective action, be
checked and eventually adapted, and must move on
again to careful planning in a continuing cycle.
People
All individuals employed by the organisation including
full time, part time, and temporary employees.
Perception measurement
Measurement of subjective impressions and opinions
of an individual or a group of people, e.g. the custom-
er’s perception of the quality of a product or service.
Performance
A measure of attainment achieved by an individual,
team, organisation or process.
Public policy
A purposeful course of action followed by governmen-
tal bodies and officials in dealing with a problem or
a matter of public interest. This includes government
action, inaction, decisions and non-decisions and it
implies choices between competitive alternatives.
Procedure
A description of how activities should take place, in a
detailed and defined way.
Process
A process is defined as a set of activities, which trans-
forms a set of inputs into outputs, thereby adding val-
ue. The nature of processes in public service organisa-
tions may vary greatly, from relatively abstract activities
such as support for policy development or regulation
of economic activities, to very concrete activities of
service provision.
One can distinguish between:
– Core processes are critical to the delivery of prod-
ucts and services
– Support processes deliver the necessary resources
– Management processes steer the organisation and
support processes
– Key processes are those of the above pro-
cesses that are of utmost importance for
the organisation.
Process diagram
A graphical representation of the series of actions tak-
ing place within a process
Process map
A graphical representation of the series of actions tak-
ing place between processes.
48
Process owner
The person responsible for designing, improving and
performing processes, their coordination and integra-
tion inside the organisation.
Her/his responsibilities include the following:
– Understand the process: How is it carried out in
practice?
– Target the process: How does it fit into the broader
vision? Who are the internal and external stake-
holders and are their expectations met? How does
the process relate to other processes?
– Communicate the process to the internal and ex-
ternal stakeholders
– Monitor and measure the process: To what extent
is the process efficient and effective?
– Benchmark the process: How do other organisa-
tions perform and what can we learn from them?
– Envision the process: What is the long-term
vision for the process and what do we have to do
to reach it?
– Report the process: What exactly can be improved?
Where are the weaknesses and how can they be
targeted?
By employing these steps the process owner has the
chance to improve the process continually.
Public service organisation/Public adminis-
tration
A public service organisation is any institution, serv-
ice organisation or system, which is under the policy
direction of and controlled by an elected government
(national, federal, regional or local). It includes or-
ganisations that deal with development of policy and
enforcement of law, i.e. matters that could not be re-
garded strictly as services.
Quality
Delivering quality in the public sector is concerned with
maximising the value of products and services for all
stakeholders within a political and financial frame-
work. TQM focuses on procedures and processes that
are deemed instrumental in promoting quality.
– Quality control
Systematic control of the organisation’s abil-
ity to create professional quality in the serv-
ices it offers and delivers. It is systematic in that
the results emerge from a planned, deliberate
effort. Some organisations choose a system for
quality control based on a quality manual or proc-
ess manuals. Quality control systems usually con-
tain a select collection of guidelines for implement-
ing quality controls in practice, and how quality is
measured and improved.
– Quality management
A method for ensuring that all the activities neces-
sary to design, develop and implement a product
or service are effective and efficient with respect to
the system and its performance.
– Quality management system
A system that outlines the policies and procedures
necessary to improve, control and integrate the
processes eventually leading to a better perform-
ance.
Resources
Resources include the knowledge, labour, capital,
buildings or technology an organisation uses to per-
form its tasks.
Role model
Persons or organisations who serve as a model in a
particular behavioural or social role for other persons
to imitate or learn from.
SMART objectives
Objectives state what an organisation has set out to
achieve. It is recommended that objectives should be
SMART:
– Specific – precise about what you are going to
achieve
– Measurable – with quantified objectives
– Achievable
– Realistic – Are the necessary resources available?
– Timed – within manageable timing
Stakeholders
Stakeholders are all those who have an interest, wheth-
er financial or not, in the activities of the organisation,
for example, political decision-makers, citizens/cus-
tomers, employees, society, inspection agencies, me-
dia, partners, etc. Government organisations are also
stakeholders.
Strategy
A long-term plan of prioritised actions designed
to achieve a major or overall goal or to fulfil a
mission.
Survey
To collect data on opinions, attitudes or knowledge
from individuals and groups. Frequently only a cross-
section of the whole population is asked to partici-
pate.
SWOT Analysis
Analysis of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities
(potential advantages) and Threats (potential difficul-
ties) of and to an organisation.
Term
Period of time in which results should be achieved
– Short term
Refers usually to less than one year
– Medium term
Refers usually to periods of one to five years
ahead
– Long term
Refers usually to periods of more than five years
Top-down
Flow of information and decisions from upper levels
to lower levels within an organisation. The opposite is
bottom-up.
TQM (Total Quality Management)
A customer focused management philosophy that
seeks to continuously improve business processes us-
ing analytical tools and teamwork involving all em-
ployees. There are several TQM models, the EFQM,
the CAF, the Malcolm Baldrige (USA), ISO 9004 being
the most commonly used.
Transparency
Transparency implies openness, communication, and
accountability. It is a metaphorical extension of the
meaning used in the physical sciences: a „transparent“
object is one that can be seen through. Transparent
procedures include open meetings, financial disclo-
sure statements, the freedom of information legisla-
tion, budgetary review, audits, etc.
Value
Value refers to monetary, welfare, cultural and
moral values. Moral values are considered to
be more or less universal, whereas cultural val-
ues may shift between organisations as well as
between countries. Cultural values within an or-
ganisation should be transmitted and practised
and also be related to the mission of the organisa-
tion. They may be quite different between non-profit
organisations and private businesses.
Vision
The achievable dream or aspiration of what an
organisation wants to do and where it would like to
be.
The context of this dream and aspiration is
determined by the mission of the organisation.
49